Psychology of Space Exploration PDF

Psychology of
Space Exploration
Contemporary Research in Historical Perspective
Edited by Douglas A. Vakoch
The NASA History Series

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Office of Communications
History Program Office
Washington, DC
2011
NASA SP-2011-4411
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Psychology of space exploration : contemporary research in historical perspective /
edited by Douglas A. Vakoch.
p. cm. -- (NASA history series)
1. Space psychology. 2. Space flight--Psychological aspects. 3. Outer space--Exploration. 4. Space sciences--United States. I. Vakoch, Douglas A. II. United States.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
RC1160.P79 2009
155.966--dc22
2009026665
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001
I S B N 978-0-16-088358-3
To Julie and Len
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Table of Contents
Foreword
Acknowledgments
Chapter 1. Introduction: Psychology and the U.S. Space Program
vii
ix
1
Albert A. Harrison, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis

Edna R. Fiedler, National Space Biomedical Research Institute, Baylor College
of Medicine
Section I: Surviving and Thriving in Extreme Environments

Chapter 2. Behavioral Health
17

Edna R. Fiedler, National Space Biomedical Research Institute, Baylor College
of Medicine
Chapter 3. From Earth Analogs to Space: Getting There from Here
47
Sheryl L. Bishop, Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health

and School of Nursing, University of Texas Medical Branch
Chapter 4. Patterns in Crew-Initiated Photography of Earth from the

ISSIs Earth Observation a Salutogenic Experience?
79
Julie A. Robinson, Office of the ISS Program Scientist, National Aeronautics

and Space Administration (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC)
Kelley J. Slack, Behavioral Health and Performance Research, Wyle Laboratories
Valerie A. Olson, Department of Anthropology, Rice University
Michael H. Trenchard, Image Science and Analysis Laboratory, Engineering and
Science Contract Group (ESCG), NASA JSC
Kimberly J. Willis, Image Science and Analysis Laboratory, ESCG, NASA JSC
Pamela J. Baskin, Behavioral Health and Performance Research, Wyle Laboratories
Jennifer E. Boyd, Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San
Francisco; and San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center
Psychology of Space Exploration
Section II: Managing Interpersonal Conflict in Space

Chapter 5. Managing Negative Interactions in Space Crews: The Role of
Simulator Research
103
Harvey Wichman, Aerospace Psychology Laboratory, Claremont McKenna

College and Claremont Graduate University
Chapter 6. Gender Composition and Crew Cohesion During Long-Duration

Space Missions
125
Jason P. Kring, Department of Human Factors and Systems, Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University
Megan A. Kaminski, Program in Human Factors and Applied Cognition, George
Mason University
Section III: Multicultural Dimensions of Space Exploration

Chapter 7. Flying with Strangers: Postmission Reflections of
Multinational Space Crews
143
Peter Suedfeld, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia

Kasia E. Wilk, Youth Forensic Psychiatric Services Research and Evaluation
Department, Ministry of Children and Family Development
Lindi Cassel, Department of Occupational Therapy, Providence Health Care
Chapter 8. Spaceflight and Cross-Cultural Psychology
177
Juris G. Draguns, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University

Afterword. From the Past to the Future
195
Gro Mjeldheim Sandal, Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen

Gloria R. Leon, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota
About the Authors

Acronyms and Abbreviations
Subject Index
Authors Cited
vi
205
219
221
235
249
Foreword
Each month, the cover of Monitor on Psychology, a magazine sent to over one
hundred thousand members of the American Psychological Association, reflects
intriguing new areas of interest to psychologists who work as researchers, clinicians,
consultants, and teachers. The importance of human adaptation to space for contemporary psychologists is suggested by the cover of the March 2008 Monitor, which
featured an astronaut drifting in space, with the tranquil blue Earth in the background and the caption Deep Space Psych below.
At one level, the essays in this volume provide an overview and synthesis of
some of the key issues in the psychology of space exploration, as well as a sampling
of highly innovative empirical research. The characteristic that most clearly sets
this collection apart from others, however, is the depth with which the authors
have engaged the history of the psychology of space exploration.
All psychologists are familiar with the importance of engaging past research and
theory while conducting literature reviews in preparation for designing and interpreting new studies. But the contributors to this collection have done much more.
They have crafted essays that will be of obvious value to psychologists, psychiatrists,
and other behavioral researchers. At the same time, these authors have created a
collection with the promise to promote a greater dialogue between psychological
researchers and both historians of space exploration and historians of psychology.
Psychologists and historians have quite different criteria for good scholarship
and for communicating their findings. These differences make the essays in this volumemeaningful and accessible even to those not formally trained in psychologists methodologies and mindsetsall the more impressive. With the increasing
specialization and isolation of academic disciplines from one another over the past
century, these essays serve as a prototype for a broader attempt to bridge the gap
between the two cultures of science and the humanities that C. P. Snow identified
almost a half century agoquite fittingly for us, near the beginning of the Space
Age. Let us hope that as we prepare once again to send astronauts beyond Earths
orbit, we can do so with the guidance of others equally open to seeing beyond their
own specialties.
vii
Acknowledgments
Without the intellectual leadership of Albert Harrison, this book would never
have come into existence, and it could not have been completed in such a timely
manner. His contributions will be evident in the three chapters he has coauthored;
invisible is his extensive work recruiting other contributors, reviewing chapters,
and providing last-minute assistance more times than I care to remember. Much
more important to me, however, is Als ongoing friendship.
Over the past decade, many colleagues from the SETI Institute have shared
with me their insights about the societal and educational impact of space explorationespecially John Billingham, Edna DeVore, Frank Drake, Andrew Fraknoi,
John Gertz, Chris Neller, Tom Pierson, Karen Randall, Seth Shostak, and Jill Tarter.
More recently, I warmly acknowledge the administration, faculty, staff, and students
of the California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS), especially for support from
Katie McGovern, Joseph Subbiondo, and Judie Wexler. The work of editing this volume was made possible through a generous sabbatical leave from my other academic
responsibilities at CIIS. In addition, I thank Harry and Joyce Letaw, as well as Jamie
Baswell, for their intellectual and financial contributions to promoting the societal
aspects of space exploration.
Among the organizations that have fostered discussions on the topics in this
volume, I especially want to recognize the International Academy of Astronautics
(IAA) and the American Psychological Association (APA). Several of the chapters in this volume are elaborations of papers first presented at the APAs 115th
Annual Convention, held in San Francisco in August 2007.
For his openness to considering a new topic for the NASA History Series, I
thank Steve Dick; I am also grateful to him and to Steve Garber for leading such a
thorough and helpful review process and for moving this volume into production
so efficiently.
In the Communications Support Services Center at NASA Headquarters,
Lisa Jirousek copyedited the manuscript, Christopher Yates designed the layout, Stacie Dapoz and George Gonzalez proofread the layout, and Hanta Ralay
and Tun Hla handled the printing. Supervisors Gail Carter-Kane, Cindy Miller,
Michael Crnkovic, and Tom Powers oversaw the overall process. Thanks are due
to all of these fine professionals.
ix
Finally, I thank the contributors and reviewers of the essays that appear in this
volume. By taking seriously the importance of history for contemporary psychological research, they have opened new possibilities for interdisciplinary collaborations in the future.
Douglas A. Vakoch
Mountain View and San Francisco, California
Chapter 1
Introduction: Psychology and the U.S. Space Program

Albert A. Harrison
Department of Psychology
University of California, Davis
Edna R. Fiedler
National Space Biomedical Research Institute
Baylor College of Medicine
ABSTRACT
Astronauts live and work in highly unusual and challenging environments where
they must withstand multiple stressors. Their abilities to maintain positive psychological outlooks and good interpersonal relations are crucial for personal well-being and
mission success. From the inception of the space program, psychologists, psychiatrists,
human factors experts, and other professionals have warned that the psychological
stressors of space should be treated as a risk factor and that the risk would increase as
missions involved larger, more diversified crews undertaking increasingly long flights.
Thus, they called for research leading to the development and application of effective
countermeasures. Although psychology played a significant role at the inception of the
space program, for many years thereafter certain areas of psychology all but disappeared
from NASA. Interest in psychosocial adaptation was rekindled in the mid-1990s when
astronauts joined cosmonauts on the Russian space station Mir. NASAs recognition
of the field of behavioral health and its links to performance opened the door to many
kinds of research that were formerly overlooked. Focusing on the underutilized areas of
personality and social psychology, the chapters that follow discuss psychologys struggle
for acceptance, the history of astronaut selection and psychological support, the use of
analog environments and simulators for research and training, space tourism, the psychological rewards of viewing Earth from space, crew composition and group dynamics, and cross-cultural aspects of international missions. This book concludes with a
summary, integration, and evaluation of the role of psychology in space exploration.
INTRODUCTION
Once, I was evaluating astronaut applicants says psychiatrist

Nick Kanas. I asked them to give me some examples of things
that might cause stress. One applicant, a test pilot, recalled the
time he was flying an experimental aircraft and it spun out of control. As the plane spiraled down, he took out his manual, calmly
thumbed through it, and figured out how to pull the plane to
safety. His ability to temporarily control his emotions was striking, laughs Kanas.1
Fully aware of astronauts remarkable strengths, Kanas also knows that many
physical and psychological stressors can pose risks to safety, performance, and quality of life.2 Some of these stressors are associated with flight: riding atop a rocket;
rapid acceleration and deceleration; somewhat primitive living conditions; isolation from family and friends; close confinement with other people; and the
ever-present specter of a collision, system failure, or other disaster. Other types of
stressors come from the astronauts career. From the earliest days of the space program, astronauts have served as societal exemplars, living under intense public
scrutiny; carried heavy workloads on Earth as in space; and undergone prolonged
absences from home for training, flight, and other purposes. They must withstand
the typical hassles of trying to succeed within large bureaucracies, worry over flight
assignments, and readjust to their families when they return to Earth.3 J. Kass,
R.Kass, and I.Samaltedinov describe how some of this may seem to an astronaut:
1. How Astronauts Get Along, Science@NASA, 21 October 2002, available at http://

science.msfc.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/21oct_getalong.htm (accessed 29 March 2008).
2. N. Kanas, Psychosocial Factors Affecting Simulated and Actual Space Missions,
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 56, no. 8 (August 1985): 806811; N. Kanas,
Psychosocial Support for Cosmonauts, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 62, no. 4
(August 1991): 353355; N. Kanas, V. P. Salnitskiy, J. B. Ritsher, V. I. Gushin, D. S. Weiss, S.
A. Saylor, O. P. Kozerenko, and C. R. Marmar, Human Interactions in Space: ISS vs. Shuttle/
Mir, Acta Astronautica 59 (2006): 413419.
3. W. E. Sipes and S. T. Vander Ark, Operational Behavioral Health and Performance
Resources for International Space Station Crews and Families, Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, sec. II (June 2005): B36B41.
He knows he has been trained and put into space at great cost
and effort, and he has a limited amount of time, especially during a short shuttle mission, to perform the tasks set out for him,
efficiently. The precious data of the scientists on the ground, who
have dedicated many years for this experiment, can be lost, the
equipment can be damaged in such a way that it cannot be repaired
in space, or worse still, his blunder can affect the safety of life on
the spaceship. Even if such drastic errors are seldom, he is nevertheless under great stresshe has to get the work done quickly,
so that the next scheduled event can take place as planned. This
kind of stress affects him not only as an individual, but as a member of a team: His peers are watching him, and he knows full well,
not only will any mistakes made affect their work as well, but he
fails in their eyes in a similar manner as a member of a sports team,
whose error can affect the success of the team as a whole.4
This book discusses selected topics in the psychology of space exploration. In this
and the following chapters, we and other contributors address the changing role of
psychology within the U.S. space program, review the history of astronaut selection
and training, and describe the evolution of techniques for providing astronauts and
cosmonauts with psychological support. Contributing authors explain why and how
psychologists use space-reminiscent settings (such as undersea habitats and polar outposts) for research and training purposes. They trace the not-always-smooth course
of the diversification of the astronaut corps from a homogenous collection of white,
male test pilots to a more heterogeneous group including women and minorities.
They tell about group dynamics and teamwork, as well as occasional friction between
crews in flight and people in Mission Control. One of the most dramatic changes over
50 years of crewed flight has been the transition from fiercely competitive national
space programs to collaborative efforts with international crews, so cultural issues are
discussed. Over the past 50 years, space missions have changed, and so have salient
behavioral issues and opportunities for psychologists.
4. J. Kass, R. Kass, and I. Samaltedinov, Psychological Problems of Man in Space: Problems

and Solutions, Acta Astronautica 36 (1995): 657660.
How has psychology fared in the U.S. space program? In his presidential address
to the Division of Engineering Psychology on 4 September 1961, Walter F. Grether
affirmed psychologys crucial role in the newly initiated conquest of space, noting
that psychologists of that day were responding with creativity and vigor to the enormous behavioral challenges.5 Looking back over the history of aviation, Grether
remarked that despite a few contributions to military aviation in World War I, for
roughly 35 years after the Wright brothers initial flight at Kitty Hawk, aviation
and psychology pretty much went separate ways. Then, beginning with research
to benefit civilian aviation in the late 1930s and followed by a powerful military
program in World War II, aviation psychology became prominent and influential.
How much different the role of psychology has been in mans early ventures into
space! Grether wrote.6 Psychological testing, he continued, was prominent in the
selection of the initial seven Mercury astronauts, and beyond selection psychologists were productively engaged in vehicle design, training, task design, and workload management.
Grether pointed to four areas for future research: moving about the interior of
spacecraft (once they became large enough for this to occur), conducting extravehicular activities (EVAs) or spacewalks, performing rendezvous, and living and
working under conditions of prolonged isolation and confinement. Highly optimistic about Americas future in space, Grether foresaw a strong continuing partnership
between psychology and space exploration. One of his few notes of pessimism
that it would not be possible to use the science fiction writers rocket gun to move
from place to place during EVAswould soon be proven wrong. Beyond providing psychologists with new opportunities for employment and research support, he
felt, space exploration would open new frontiers of knowledge and stimulate thinking about new problems that would lead to new theories, hypotheses, and methods.
Nearly three decades later, participants at the 30th anniversary of the 1959
founding of the International Ergonomics Association might conclude that Grether
was right. In the field generally known as human factors in the U.S. and ergonomics
in the United Kingdom (U.K.) and Europe, human factors specialists are interested
in the scientific problems of experimental psychology, anatomy, and physiology
5. W. F. Grether, Psychology and the Space Frontier, American Psychologist 17, no. 2
(February 1962): 92101.
6.
Ibid., pp. 9293.
applied to human work. Classically, human factors addresses peoples interaction

with physical environments in work settings, but the interests of human factors specialists have broadened over the years.7
In this 1989 presidential address to the association, Alphonse Chapanis could
point with pride to rapidly accumulating accomplishments everywhere in the field.8
Floods of data were appearing in area after area of human activity (work, transportation, leisure-time pursuits), and it was no longer possible to keep abreast of
the latest journals and books. The hottest topic of 1989 was computers: how they
had revolutionized society, how they spread beyond science and business and were
embraced by everyday people, and how they could be humanized through the
design of displays and controls. Certainly, much was left to be doneover the lifetime of the association, 71 major railroad disasters had claimed 5,059 persons; 192
major aircraft accidents had killed over 20,000 people; and, in the previous 10 years
alone, there had been thousands of nuclear mishaps, including prominent events
at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Still, Chapaniss theme was that ergonomics
had come a long way, baby, and that the biggest stimulus for this was Americas
forays into space:
Space flights have become so commonplace and so much is known
about human performance in space that it is hard to remember the
thousands of analyses, studies, and experiments that were done
to pave the way for mans leap into these hostile and unknown
regions. There were problems of vehicle design involving exotic
displays and controls. There were problems of vibration, of
g-forces, and of weightlessness that had to be explored and solved.
For extravehicular activity an entire self-contained environment
had to be designed for astronauts and cosmonauts. Torqueless
tools had to be designed for use by men who were floating freely
and encumbered by space suits with limited mobility. There were
problems of nutrition, waste disposal, and work-rest cycles. Nor
7. D. Meister, Conceptual Aspects of Human Factors (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins

University Press, 1989).
8. A. Chapanis, The International Ergonomics Association: Its First 30 Years, Ergonomics
33, no. 3 (1990): 275282.
can we forget the problems of selection, training, and simulator

design.... Our leap into space was a significant accomplishment
of the past 30 years and the ergonomic findings that helped bring
it about have enriched our profession in countless ways.9
But other assessments of psychologists contributions to the U.S. space program
were less triumphant. In 1975, Robert L. Helmreich expressed pessimistic views of
applying psychology in new areas, stating that prospective customers often respond
with profound indifference.10 In 1983, he elaborated on how data relating to personality and social psychology were underused by the U.S. space program, which (as we
shall see in chapter 2) he considered in contrast to robust use in the Soviet program.11
In a 1987 conference cosponsored by NASA and the National Science Foundation,
psychologist and management consultant Philip R. Harris observed that
[a]lthough NASA has been forthright about medical and biological insights gained from previous spaceflights ... the agency has
been hesitant on studying or releasing information on the psychosocial experience of its personnel in space. Generally, NASA has
limited the access to astronauts by social science researchers, even
by its own psychiatrists and psychologists; the agency has failed to
capitalize on the data it collected that could improve spaceflight
and living for others to follow.12
In the early 1990s, outgoing flight surgeon and psychiatrist Patricia Santy concluded that despite an initial flurry of interest, behavioral research all but disap-
9.
Ibid., pp. 276277.
10. R. L. Helmreich, Applied Social Psychology: The Unfulfilled Promise, Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin 1 (1975): 548561.
11. R. L. Helmreich, Applying Psychology to Outer Space: Unfulfilled Promises Revisited,
American Psychologist 38 (1983): 445450.
12. P. R. Harris, Personnel Deployment Systems: Managing People in Polar and Outer Space
Environments, in From Antarctica to Outer Space: Life in Isolation and Confinement, ed. A.A.
Harrison, Y. A. Clearwater, and C. P. McKay (New York: Springer, 1990), pp. 7778.
peared from NASA.13 For years, she wrote, psychology played a minimal role in
astronaut selection, and because the assessment of individual astronaut performance
was prohibited, it was not possible to collect normative data for test validation and
other purposes. She characterized the application of psychology to space as running 20 to 30 years behind most areas of medicine and identified formidable organizational barriers to psychology within NASA. Joseph V. Brady, whose research on
primate behavior in spaceflight dates back to the 1950s, states that following John
Glenns flight, there was a dearth of in-flight behavioral experiments.14 Brady characterizes this as a 30-year hiatus in psychological health research for NASA, a gap
that he thought must come to an end given NASAs vision for humans in space.
Peter Suedfeld cuts to the heart of the matter: Through most of NASAs existence,
the behavioral sciences have been barely visible on the agencys horizon.15
How can we reconcile such pessimistic views with the optimistic assessments
of Grether and Chapanis? Robert Helmreichs point was that, generally, those disciplines that are rooted in biology, engineering, and experimental psychology have
found greater acceptance within the space program than disciplines rooted in personality, social, and organizational psychology. Lawrence Palinkas, an anthropologist who has developed an enviable record of hands-on research experience in
unusual environments, organized these issues in long-term spaceflight into three
domains: the individual domain (stress and coping), the group dynamics domain
(social interaction and intergroup relations), and the organizational domain (management, organizational culture, and behavior).16
From the beginning, physicians, psychologists, and their allies advocated strong
behavioral research programs in NASA. Margaret A. Weitekamp points out how
interest in high-altitude flight in the 1930s initiated research that evolved into aero-
13. P. A. Santy, Choosing the Right Stuff: The Psychological Selection of Astronauts and
Cosmonauts (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994).
14. J. V. Brady, Behavioral Health: The Propaedeutic Requirement, Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, sect. II (June 2005): B13B23.
15. P. Suedfeld, Invulnerability, Coping, Salutogenesis, Integration: Four Phases of
Spaceflight Psychology, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, sect. II (June
2005): B61.
16. L. Palinkas, Psychosocial Issues in Long-Term Space Flight: An Overview, Gravitational
and Space Biology Bulletin 12, no. 2 (2001): 2533.
space medicine in the 1940s.17 Research to support pilots flying very fast and very high
provided a basis for sending astronauts into space. The first conference with space in
the title was prior to 1950, notes Weitekamp, but some space-oriented research was
clandestine or integrated into aviation medicine and psychology in order to avoid
the wrath of superiors who thought it wasteful to study Buck Rogers issues. In 1961,
Bernard Flaherty edited Psychophysiological Aspects of Space Flight, which focused on
the sensory and biotechnical aspects of spaceflight and simulations, as well as addressing issues of human durability.18 Human Factors in Jet and Space Travel also appeared
that year.19 The latter was edited by Saul B. Sells, a NASA consultant who first wrote
about astronaut selection and training in 1957, and Charles A. Berry, at one time
NASA Director of Life Science and physician to the astronauts. They dealt with performance under conditions of acceleration and deceleration, as well as human adaptation to space. In 1967, Joseph Kubis, along with Edward J. McLaughlin, specifically
addressed the psychological aspects of spaceflight.20 They noted that whereas shortterm spaceflight did not have adverse effects on functioning, factors such as emotional
stability and group dynamics could prove important in future missions. As would
many other writers, they illustrated their points with studies of psychological reactions to isolation and confinement in terrestrial settings.
In the early 1970s, Joseph Kubis addressed issues of group dynamics: group
composition, leadership, and teamwork.21 In 1971, Air Force psychiatrist Nick
Kanas, in collaboration with William E. Fedderson, released an outline of many
of the psychological and psychiatric issues that have filtered down and influence
discussions today.22
17. M. A. Weitekamp, Right Stuff Wrong Sex: Americas First Women in Space Program
(Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004).
18. B. E. Flaherty, Psychophysiological Aspects of Space Flight (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1961).
19. S. B. Sells and C. A. Berry, eds., Human Factors in Space and Jet Travel: A MedicalPsychological Analysis (New York: Ronald Press, 1961).
20. J. F. Kubis and E. J. McLaughlin, Psychological Aspects of Spaceflight, Transactions of the
New York Academy of Sciences 30, no. 2 (1967): 320330.
21. J. F. Kubis, Isolation, Confinement, and Group Dynamics in Long Duration Spaceflight,
Acta Astronautica 17 (1972): 4572.
22. N. Kanas and W. E. Fedderson, Behavioral, Psychiatric, and Sociological Problems of Long
Duration Missions (Washington, DC: NASA Technical Memorandum X-58067, 1971).
In 1972, the National Academy of Sciences released the report of a study

panel chaired by Donald B. Lindsley of the University of California, Los Angeles
(UCLA).23 The panel sought to indicate the blocks of research, roughly in order
of priority that will be most fruitful in the years ahead in coming to grips with the
problems of long-duration missions.... In this, there is little doubt in the minds
of the study participants that the difficulties are formidable, the unknowns significant, and the prerequisite research extensive ....24 Many of the experts were
interested in space physiology and medicine, but the panel also included psychologists with expertise in stress, social interaction, and behavior in unusual environments. In addition to recommending basic biomedical and life-support research, the
panel urged studies of skilled performance, environmental habitability, group processes, interpersonal interaction, and the relationship of the space crew microsociety to the larger flight team. In 1977, partially in response to Lindsleys report,
Mary M. Connors and her associates began a review of the then-current foundations for understanding behavior during anticipated Space Shuttle and space station missions.25 Their report, not published until 1985, identified a middle ground
between narrowly focused experiments and bold generalizations. They adopted an
open systems approach and addressed topics at the individual, small group, and
organizational levels.
In the late 1980s, the Committee on Space Biology and Medicine of the
National Research Council gave further impetus to psychology, noting that
[a]lthough the evidence is fragmentary, it seems likely that behavioral and social
problems have already occurred during long-term missions.... An understanding
of the problems and their amelioration is essential if man desires to occupy space
for extended periods of time. Even more important from a scientific perspective, it
seems likely that significant advances in our basic knowledge of human interaction
23. D. B. Lindsley, ed., Human Factors in Long Duration Spaceflight (Washington, DC: National
Academy of Sciences, 1972).
24. Ibid., p. 15.
25. M. M. Connors, A. A. Harrison, and F. R. Akins, Living Aloft: Human Requirements for
Extended Spaceflight (Washington, DC: NASA SP-483, 1985).
and processes will emerge from the research needed to ensure effective performance
and adjustment in space.26
Revisiting the issue some 10 years later, a subsequent Committee on Space
Biology and Medicine reaffirmed the urgency of their predecessors recommendations: Despite this [the 1987 panels] assessment of the importance of behavioral
issues, little progress has been made transforming the recommendations for research
on human behavior and performance in space into action.... As could be predicted from controlled simulation studies, the history of space exploration has seen
many instances of reduced energy levels, mood changes, poor interpersonal relations, faulty decision-making, and lapses in memory and attention. Although these
negative psychological reactions have yet to result in disaster, this is no justification
for ignoring problems that may have disastrous consequences. Furthermore, there
are degrees of failure short of disaster and degrees of success short of perfection; if
favorable organizational and environmental conditions can increase the level and
probability of success, they are worthy of consideration.27
The 1998 Committees recommendations included studying the effects of the
physical and psychosocial environment of spacecraft on cognitive, psychophysiological, and affective measures of behavior and performance; the development
and evaluation of countermeasures for mitigating adverse effects of the physical
and social environments on individual and group performance; in-flight studies of
the characteristics of sleep during long-duration missions; ground-based studies of
change and stability in individual psychophysiological patterns in response to psychosocial and environmental stressors; the effects of individual differences on cognitive, psychophysiological, and affective measures of behavior and performance;
improved methods for assessing interpersonal relations and crew compatibility; and
improved training [didactic and experiential] in psychological and social adaptation to space. The Committee also urged exploring the effects of crew composition
on crew tension, cohesion, and performance; factors affecting ground-crew communication and interactions; and conditions that affect the distribution of authority,
decision-making, and task assignments between space crews and ground control.
26. Committee on Space Biology and Medicine, A Strategy for Space Medicine and Medical
Science for the 1980s and 1990s (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1987), p. 169.
27. Committee on Space Biology and Medicine, A Strategy for Research in Space Biology and
Medicine in the New Century (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998), p. 169.
10
In 2001, the National Academy of Sciences issued Safe Passage: Astronaut

Care for Exploration Missions,28 prepared by the Committee on Creating a Vision
for Space Medicine During Travel Beyond Earth Orbit of the Institute of Medicine
of the National Academy of Sciences. This panel of experts identified some of the
medical and behavioral issues that should be resolved quickly in anticipation of a
return to the Moon and a mission to Mars. This far-ranging work covers astronaut
health in transit to Earth orbit and beyond, health maintenance, emergency and
continuing care, the development of a new infrastructure for space medicine, and
medical ethics. Most importantly for present purposes, Safe Passage includes a chapter on behavioral health, a topic that we discuss in some detail in chapter 2.
Different missions raise different questions about human behavior. The most
conspicuous questions of the earliest days of spaceflight had to do with life support, the human-machine interface, and the optimization of human performance to
ensure mission success. Certainly these topics remain crucial today, but to them we
may add many more. Following Apollo and the race to the Moon, NASA entered
new eras in 1981, when the Space Shuttle took flight, and again in 1993, when
astronauts joined cosmonauts first on Russias Mir space station and then on the
International Space Station (ISS) in 2000. Topics such as habitability, loneliness,
cultural conflicts, the need to sustain a high level of performance over the long
haul, and postflight adjustment gained a degree of immediacy and could no longer be ignored. Consistent with Davis Meisters views on conceptual changes in
human factors, there has been, over the years, a shift from a purely displays and
knobs orientation to a more holistic approach, with project managers, engineers,
and behavioral researchers sharing the goal of a seamless human-machine structure
or system integration.29
In their discussion of post-Apollo psychological issues, Connors and her associates noted that as missions change, so do behavioral requirements.30 Perhaps the
most conspicuous trends are in the direction of increased crew size, diversity, and
mission duration. The first round of U.S. flights, under Project Mercury, were solo
but rapidly gave way to two-person crews with the advent of Project Gemini in
28. J. R. Ball and C. H. Evans, eds., Safe Passage: Astronaut Care for Exploration Missions
(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001).
29. Meister, Conceptual Aspects of Human Factors.
30. Connors et al., Living Aloft.
11
1965, followed by three-person crews during the Apollo program. After Mercury,
note Clay Foushee and Robert Helmreich, the test pilot became a less relevant
model than the multi-engine aircraft commander, who not only requires technical
skills but also requires human relations skills as the leader of a team.31 Americas first
space station, Skylab, provided a house in space for three-person crews; apart from
occasional emergencies or visitors, three-person crews were also typical for Soviet
(197089) and then Russian (1990 and onwards) space stations and the ISS. Space
Shuttles are relatively capacious and usually carry six to eight crewmembers. Other
than during brief visits from Shuttle crews, the ISS has been home to crews of two
to six people. We suspect that later space stations will house larger crews. Although
it is possible to envision huge orbiting platforms and communities on the Moon and
Mars, foreseeable missions are unlikely to exceed eight people, so crews will remain
within the small group range.
A second salient trend is toward increasing diversity of crew composition. The
initial vision was for a highly diverse pool of astronaut candidates, including mountain climbers, deep sea divers, and arctic explorers, but, as will be explained in the
next chapter, it was military test pilots who got the nod. The military remains well
represented, but over the years, the astronaut corps has been expanded to include
people from many different professions and a greater number of women and minorities. Further complexity was added with the Soviet guest cosmonaut program beginning in the 1970s, the inclusion of international crewmembers on the Shuttle, and
international missions on Mir and the ISS. Already, tourists have entered the mix,
and the first industrial workers in commercial space ventures may not be far behind.
Third, initial spaceflights were measured in hours, then days. (Indeed, within
each series of flights, successive Mercury and then Gemini flights were longer and
longer, to establish that astronauts could withstand the long trip to the Moon.)
The third Skylab crew remained on orbit 84 days. Skylab was short-lived, but the
Soviets set endurance records in this area; the present record of 366 days was set
by a Russian cosmonaut on Mir during a 198788 mission. ISS missions have usually lasted about three months, but individuals are staying on the Space Station for
up to six months, as demonstrated in 2007 and 2008 by Sunni Williams and Peggy
31. H. C. Foushee and R. L. Helmreich, Group Interactions and Flight Crew Performance,
in Human Factors in Aviation, ed. E. L. Wiener and D. C. Nagel (New York: Academic Press,
1998), pp. 189228.
12
Whitson. Extended stays can also result from unexpected circumstances, such as
the loss of the Shuttle Columbia, which delayed the retrieval of one crew. If and
when humans go to Mars, the sheer distance may require a transit time of two years.
Technology is advancing in all areas, including space exploration. Over the
years, electromechanical gauges that dominated cockpits were replaced first with
cathode-ray tubes and now with digital displays. New technology is leading to new
human-machine partnerships, with computer-based decision aids, improved communications, and increased availability of automated systems and robotics. New
on-board systems will augment the astronauts ability to diagnose and solve flight
problems, and it is reasonable to expect improved launch and recovery systems.32
In the chapters that follow, psychologists with strong interests in space discuss
selected research topics within their historical contexts. In chapter 2, we trace the
uneven course of psychology in the space program and describe the history of astronaut selection and psychological support. In chapter 3, Sheryl Bishop points out that
whereas there has been limited opportunity to study astronauts in space, there has
been ample opportunity to study people in environments that in some ways resemble that of space. These analogs include polar camps and undersea research vessels
that share danger, deprivation, isolation, confinement, and other characteristics with
spacecraft, along with simulators intended to imitate or mimic spaceflight conditions.
In comparison to studies conducted in everyday or laboratory settings, studies set in
these more extreme environments offer a balance between accessibility and experimental control on the one hand and a degree of environmental realism on the other.
Bishop discusses a wide range of analogs and simulators in the United States and
abroad and notes that these are absolutely crucial for training purposes.
Spaceflight has positive and rewarding as well as stressful characteristics, and
in chapter 4, Julie Robinson, Kelley J. Slack, Valerie Olson, Mike Trenchard, Kim
Willis, Pam Baskin, and Jennifer Boyd discuss one of these psychological benefits:
observing Earth. They present a unique study of taking pictures from space. This
is an excellent example of an unobtrusive study, that is, one that does not set up
expectations on the part of the research participants or infringe on their privacy.
An overwhelming proportion of the photographs taken from the ISS are initiated
32. J. W. McCandless, M. K. Kaiser, T. Barth, R. S. McCann, N. J. Currie, and B. Woolford,

Human-Systems Integration Challenges for Constellation, Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, Aerospace Systems 5 (2007): 96100.
13
by crewmembers. What kinds of substitute activities can we devise for some future
missions when looking out the window may not be an option?
Then, Harvey Wichman points out that soon, spaceflight may no longer be a
government monopoly and future spacefarers may include growing proportions of
tourists and industrial workers. This situation may require departing from the government agency form of organization that has dominated space exploration so far
in favor of a private enterprise model of commercial space exploration; it will also
require accommodating people who lack the qualifications of todays astronauts and
cosmonauts. In his view, society is at a historical threshold that will require a shift
in how engineers, designers, flight managers, and crews perform their tasks. He illustrates some of these points with his industry-sponsored simulation study intended
to gauge tourist reactions to spaceflight.
Group dynamics is a focal point for Jason Kring and Megan A. Kaminski, who
explore gender effects on social interaction and the determinants of interpersonal
cohesion (commitment to membership in the group) and task cohesion (commitment to the work at hand). Their review of the basic literature on mixed-gender
groups, as well as findings from spaceflight and other extreme environments, points
to the conclusion that whereas there are many benefits to mixed-gender crews (typically, men and women bring different skills to the mix), the issue is multifaceted
and complex and poses challenges for spaceflight operations. Although psychologists are gaining some understanding of the determinants of crew cohesion, the
effects on performance depend upon the type of cohesion (interpersonal and task)
and the nature of the task. None of this is simplified by findings that cohesion is
likely to fluctuate over the course of an extended mission.
Cross-cultural issues dominate the next two chapters. In Flying with
Strangers, Peter Suedfeld, Kasia Wilk, and Lindi Cassel draw a distinction between
multinational crews, in which guests were allowed to participate in U.S. or
Soviet/Russian missions, and international crews, which first appeared aboard the
International Space Station, which is not owned and operated by any one nation.
Through studying the reminiscences of majority and minority participants in multinational and international missions, they test the hypothesis that multinational
flights are a source of frustration and annoyance that are not evident in the true
partnerships of international flights. Then, Juris Draguns and Albert Harrison elaborate on cross-cultural issues and propose applying a cultural assimilator to build
cross-cultural awareness and sensitivity.
14
In the final chapter of this book, Gro Sandal and Gloria Leon present a summary and integration that places the earlier chapters within broader historical, cultural, and organizational contexts. They point out that whereas we can point with
pride to past accomplishments, missions will continue to change and there will
always be a need for more research and new operational procedures. The research
that is doneand, perhaps more importantly, that is not donereflects political as
well as scientific and operational concerns. Many of psychologys advances within
the American program are recent, and it is not clear if these gains will withstand
the test of time. However, sponsors of other programs, such as the European Space
Agency (ESA), understand that psychology is one of the many disciplines required
to ensure successful spaceflight.
We conclude our introduction with three important caveats. First, although
most of the chapters in this book are authored or coauthored by psychologists
and make repeated references to psychology, understanding and managing human
behavior in space is an interdisciplinary effort. In essence, spaceflight psychology
includes contributions from architecture and design, engineering, biology, medicine, anthropology, sociology, communications, and organizational studies, as well
as many hybrids (such as cognitive science) and disciplines within psychology (such
as environmental, social, and clinical). In a similar vein, the delivery of psychological services to astronauts involves physicians, psychiatrists, social workers, and
peers, as well as psychologists.
Second, no one pretends that the chapters in this volume are representative
of psychology (never mind the broader field of behavioral science) as a whole.
Our essays do not provide in-depth treatment of the interface between engineering and psychology, nor do they attend to the interface of biology and behavior, for
example, the effects of cumulative fatigue and circadian rhythms on performance
and risk. With respect to this, we note a recent chapter by Barbara Woolford and
Frances Mount that described how, over the past 40 years, research on anthropometrics, biomechanics, architecture, and other ergonomics issues slowly shifted
from surviving and functioning in microgravity to designing space vehicles and
habitats to produce the greatest returns for human knowledge.33
33. Barbara Woolford and Frances Mount, Human Space Flight, in Handbook of Human
Factors and Ergonomics, ed. Gavriel Salvendi, 3rd ed. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons,
2006), pp. 929955.
15
Finally, apart from psychological studies of astronauts, we acknowledge many

other areas where psychology interfaces with NASA. For example, NASA maintains an excellent program in aviation human factors. Even robotic missions, such
as those already dispatched to Mars, have a human touch. It is necessary to assemble, organize, and train teams to manage such missions. Considerable preparation
is necessary for successful teleoperations, for example, Earth-bound researchers
conducting a glove box experiment aboard a satellite thousands of miles away
or driving a teleoperated rover on Mars. Some automated satellites are designed
for easy servicing by Shuttle crews. Satellites devoted to remote sensing must be
designed with human sensory, perceptual, and information processing systems in
mind. Furthermore, the loss of Challenger and Columbia reflected organizational and
behavioral factors such as miscommunication and faulty judgment as well as technical failures.34 Astronauts in flight are the focal point of this volume, but there are
many areas where psychology can contribute to NASA.
34. M. M. McConnell, Challenger: A Major Malfunction (New York: Doubleday, 1987);

D.Vaughan, The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture and Deviance at NASA
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).
16
Chapter 2
Behavioral Health
Albert A. Harrison
Edna R. Fiedler
Baylor College of Medicine
ABSTRACT
Experience gained from test pilots, high-altitude balloonists, and animals sent on
rocket flights was the starting point for understanding astronaut adaptation and performance in space. Psychology played a significant role in Project Mercury, but before that
effort was complete, official interest in such topics as astronaut selection, psychosocial
adjustment, group dynamics, and psychological support all but disappeared. Interest was
rekindled when astronauts joined cosmonauts on Mir and then became full partners on
the International Space Station. We review reasons for this period of minimal involvement in the space program and suggest that the right stuff image worked against the
field until the mid-1990s, when space station expeditions brought the challenges of
long-duration missions into focus. Evidence of renewed interest includes the advent
of the National Space Biomedical Research Institute, the development of NASAs
Bioastronautics Critical Path Roadmap, and the new Human Research Program. In 2001,
Safe Passage: Astronaut Care for Exploration Missions drew attention to behavioral health, a
concept of psychosocial adjustment that depends not only an absence of neuropsychiatric
dysfunction but on the presence positive interactions with the physical and social environments. We trace the history and current status of astronaut selection and psychological
support, two essential ingredients for maintaining behavioral health, from Mercury to the
ISS. Behavioral health is important because it reduces risk, helps optimize performance,
and contributes to the welfare of astronauts and their families. We conclude with a brief
outline for a comprehensive and continuing program in spaceflight behavioral health.
17
INTRODUCTION
In the 1950s, as America prepared for its first crewed space missions, it was
not clear that human performance capabilities could be maintained under the
demanding conditions of spaceflight. Where could NASA begin? Much of the
research, equipment, and testing procedures used to support test pilots who set successive speed and altitude records transferred easily to the early space program.1
Decompression chambers, centrifuges, rocket sleds, and the like made it possible
to explore the physiological and performance aspects of conditions that would be
encountered in space. Craig Ryan has detailed the contributions of high-altitude
ballooning, highlighting the usefulness of gondola designs (which he contends provided a basis for the Mercury spacecraft), flight suits, helmets, and much more.2 Not
everything could be off the shelf; NASA had to develop elaborate simulators for
upcoming space missions. But, on the whole, the same cast of charactersengineers, physicians, and psychologists, to mention a fewwho brought America to
the edge of space brought America into space.
Animal studies gave some reassurance that humans could adapt physiologically and behaviorally to space.3 As early as the late 1940s, biological specimens
were launched on balloons and sounding rockets. In 1958, the Russians successfully
launched a dog, Laika, who survived several days in orbit even though she could
not be brought back to Earth. Wernher von Braun approached behavioral biologist Joseph V. Brady to see if he would be willing to launch primates, which would
leapfrog the Soviets dogs.4 In 1958 and 1959, Americas first primate spacefarers,
two squirrel monkeys named Able and Baker (known at that time as Miss Able and
Miss Baker) were launched on 15-minute flights reaching an altitude of 300 miles
on a 1,500-mile trajectory and were successfully recovered following splashdown.
1. T. Wolfe, The Right Stuff (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 1979); M. A. Weitekamp,
Right Stuff, Wrong Sex: Americas First Women in Space Program (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
2. C. Ryan, The Pre-Astronauts: Manned Ballooning on the Threshold of Space (Annapolis, MD:
Naval Institute Press, 1995).
3. C. Burgess and C. Dubbs, Animals in Space: From Research Rockets to the Space Shuttle
(Chichester, U.K.: Springer Praxis, 2007).
4. Anon., Journal Interview 64: Conversation with Joseph V. Brady, Addiction 100 (2005):
18051812.
18
Behavioral Health
One of the main questions was whether the test animals could keep their wits
about them in the sense that they could do what they had been taught to do during the presumably terrifying rocket rides. Able and Baker were encased in casts
to protect them against gravitational changes, but one finger and one toe were
exposed so that, after a warning light turned on, the finger could be used to press
a lever to avoid a shock to the toe. All the way up and all the way down, they
pressed the lever on cue. Later, as a part of the Mercury pretest program, the chimpanzees Ham and Enos received much more elaborate and sophisticated training
than did their predecessors.5 They flew in special couches within Mercury capsules;
Hams flight was suborbital, but Enos completed four orbits. Although acceleration
and deceleration forces in excess of 7 gs had an immediate effect on the chimpanzees performance, once these forces diminished, their performance bounced back
to preflight levels. Microgravity did not interfere with visual processes (monitoring the lights), nor did it interfere with eating and drinking. Not only did they perform their assigned tasks in space, but the two chimpanzees also returned to Earth
in good health and with their sharply honed skills intact.6 Looking back at an episode from this era, Joseph Brady recounted:
On the recovery ship, after the helicopter had dropped the capsule once or twice before obtaining a good connection on one of
these animal pre-test flightsa good reason for practicing before
the human flightsthe hatch was opened on the flight deck and
the chimp came out sputtering and thrashing about. An admiral standing on the deck with several of us said something like If
that chimp could only talk, in response to which I felt required
to observe that the best thing that ever happened to us was that
the chimp could not talk or the space program might have come
to an abrupt end right on the spot.7
5. F. H. Rholes, Jr., M. E. Grunzke, and H. H. Reynolds, Chimpanzee Performance During

the Ballistic and Orbital Project Mercury Flights, Journal of Comparative and Physiological
Psychology 86, no. 1 (1963): 210.
6. J. V. Brady, Behavioral Health: The Propaedeutic Requirement, Aviation, Space, and
7.
Anon., Journal Interview 64: 1811.
19
During the early 1960s, the United States and Soviet Russia were locked in a
race to the Moon, and in many ways, the two programs paralleled each other. In the
United States, solo missions (Mercury) gave way to two-person missions (Gemini)
and then to three-person missions (Apollo) that, in July of 1969, brought astronauts to the Moon. The Apollo Applications Program followed close on the heels
of the last astronauts departure from the Moon. Based on leftover Moon race equipment, the Apollo Applications Program included the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project,
where Americans and Soviets joined spacecraft to live together briefly in space, and
Skylab, Americas house in space in the mid-1970s.8 By the late 1970s, the U.S.
and Soviet programs were following different paths: Americans awaited the orbiter,
or Space Shuttle, and Soviets launched a series of space stations. In 1984, President
Ronald Reagan approved the development of a U.S. space station, but construction
was delayed almost 15 years. President Bill Clinton approved the station as a multinational venture, and it became the International Space Station, or ISS. Prior to its
construction, American astronauts joined Russian cosmonauts on Mir; later, they
worked together as partners on the ISS. The ISS recently reached its 10th anniversary of having multinational crews living and working in space.
Although psychology played a prominent role in the early U.S. space program, some branches had all but disappeared by 1963. To be sure, psychologists did
show professional interest in humans in space, and many panels and commissions
sought to increase psychologys involvement (see chapter 1). Since there were practically no studies of astronauts, researchers relied heavily on studies conducted in
Antarctica, submarines and research submersibles, and simulators. Research continues in all three venues; Antarctica took an early lead and remained prominent
for many years.9 A primary reason was that International Geophysical Year (IGY,
195759) stimulated research on human adaptation to isolation and confinement,
with the authoritative and influential accounts appearing in the early 1970s.10
8.
H. S. F. Cooper, Jr., A House in Space (New York: Bantam Books, 1976).
9. L. A. Palinkas, The Psychology of Isolated and Confined Environments: Understanding

Human Behavior in Antarctica, American Psychologist 58, no. 3 (2003): 353363.
10. E. K. E. Gunderson, Human Adaptability to Antarctic Conditions (Washington, DC:
American Geophysical Union, 1973); J. E. Rasmussen, ed., Man in Isolation and Confinement
(Chicago: Aldine, 1973).
20
Behavioral Health
Other factors that favored Antarctica were the large number of people who
ventured there and that, as an international site, it offers opportunities for researchers from many different nations. By picking and choosing research locations, one
can find conditions that resemble those of many different kinds of space missions, ranging from relatively luxurious space stations to primitive extraterrestrial
camps.11 In 1963, Robert Voas, one of the early space human factors experts, and
E.K. Eric Gunderson, who had conducted pioneering psychological research in
Antarctica, seriously discussed developing a space mission simulator there, an idea
that reemerges from time to time.12 By the 1980s, it was recognized widely that
Antarctica provided a useful meeting ground for people who were interested in
adaptation to polar environments and people who were interested in adaptation to
space. In 1987, NASA and the National Science Foundations Division of Polar
Programs joined together to sponsor the Sunnyvale Conference, which brought
together researchers from each tradition. Presentations centered on environments
(Antarctica and space), theoretical perspectives, isolation and confinement effects,
and interventions and outcomes.13 Antarctic behavioral research became a truly
international venture guided in part by the Scientific Committee for Antarctic
Research and funded by many sources, including NASA. For example, Des Lugg of
NASA Headquarters and Joanna Woods at Johnson Space Center conducted medical and psychological research with the Australian National Antarctic Research
Expeditions.14 The next chapter provides further discussion of analog environments.
11. D. T. Andersen, C. P. McKay, R. A. Wharton, Jr., and J. D. Rummel, An Antarctic

Research as a Model for Planetary Exploration, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society 43
(1990): 499504.
12. E. K. E. Gunderson, Preface, in From Antarctica to Outer Space: Life in Isolation and
Confinement, ed. A. A. Harrison, Y. A. Clearwater, and C. P. McKay (New York: Springer, 1990),
p. 1.
13. A. A. Harrison, Y. A. Clearwater, and C. P. McKay, The Human Experience in
Antarctica: Applications to Life in Space, Behavioral Science 34, no. 4 (1989): 253271;
Harrison et al., From Antarctica to Outer Space.
14. J. Wood, L. Schmidt, D. Lugg, J. Ayton, T. Phillips, and M. Shepanek, Life, Survival
and Behavioral Health in Small Closed Communities: 10 Years of Studying Small Antarctic
Groups, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, sect. II (June 2005): B89B94;
D. J. Lugg, Behavioral Health in Antarctica: Implications for Long-Duration Space Missions,
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, sect. II (June 2005): B74B78.
21
As noted in chapter 1, despite repetitive calls for action, empirical research was
slow to accumulate. In the late 1990s, the National Academy of Sciences undertook a comprehensive review of behavioral and medical issues that we need to
begin to address right now to prepare for future space missions. We consider the
Academys report, Safe Passage: Astronaut Care for Exploration Missions, a watershed event.15 Like earlier calls to action, Safe Passage drew attention to many biomedical, behavioral, and psychological issues and emphasized their importance for
health, performance, and welfare on extended-duration missions. The timing was
good because its production and distribution coincided with American missions on
board Mir and the first missions to the ISS. Although future-oriented, it was developed in the context of unfolding events on then-contemporary extended-duration
missions. Most importantly, this work also introduced the concept of behavioral
health, an idea that may be particularly useful because of its breadth and relative
lack of pejorative connotations. According to one recent definition, Compared
with earlier formulations (such as mental health), behavioral health is less limited
in that it recognizes that effective, positive behavior depends on an interaction
with the physical and social environments, as well as an absence of neuropsychiatric dysfunction. Behavioral health is evident not only at the level of the individual,
but also at the levels of the group and organization.16
NASAs recognition of the field of behavioral health and linking of it to performance opened the door for many of the kinds of research that earlier were thought
to be too soft to be useful to the space program.17 Today, NASA has shown
increased recognition of shared perspectives, privacy, leisure-time activity, family
separation and reunification, cultural awareness, the satisfying properties of windows and view ports, and many other topics that were formerly overlooked if not
seen as irrelevant or frivolous. From NASAs perspective, the significance of these
factors is less in the fact that they can help people feel good (although many psy-
15. J. R. Ball and C. H. Evans, eds., Safe Passage: Astronaut Care for Exploration Missions
(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001).
16. A. A. Harrison, Behavioral Health: Integrating Research and Application in Support
of Exploration Missions, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, sect. II (June
2005): B3.
17. Bioastronautics Critical Path Roadmap, http://bioastroroadmap.nasa.gov/index.jsp (accessed 29
March 2008).
22
Behavioral Health
chologists would argue that this is a major benefit) than in their potential impact
on risk and performance. This research, in turn, has implications for organizing and
staging space missions. Thus, a combination of maturing social science and interest sparked by space station and exploration missions has opened the door, at least
partially, for new kinds of psychological research within the U.S. space program.
Whether this door will remain openor slam shutremains to be seen.
THE RIGHT STUFF
For decades, expanding the role of psychology in the U.S. space program was
an uphill battle with psychologists pleas generally falling on deaf ears. Among
the more obvious interpretations, it might be tempting to think of NASA managers and engineers as thing people rather than people people, so the behavioral
side of spaceflight is of little interest to them. Perhaps mission managers were simply unaware of the significance of behavioral factors. Or maybe, as hard scientists, they saw the behavioral and social sciences as fuzzy and inexact efforts that
lead to qualitative recommendations that are difficult to implement and unlikely to
work. The sociologist Charles Perrow has discussed how resistance to human factors within complex organizations has strong structural and cultural underpinnings
and is not overcome easily.18
Psychologists make contributions to human welfare in such diverse areas as
environmental design, problem-solving, decision-making, leadership, and group
performance, but many people strongly associate psychology with mental illness
and long-term psychotherapy. If such attitudes explained NASAs ambivalence
about behavioral factors, education would be the antidote; but for many years, educational efforts had little visible impact in research or mission operations.
The stereotype of clinical psychologists and psychiatrists working with troubled
clients may have threatening implications for NASA administrators who need to
maintain good public relations and build government support. The historian Roger
Launius points out that from the moment they were introduced to the public in
18. C. E. Perrow, The Organizational Context of Human Factors Engineering, Administrative

Science Quarterly 28, no. 4 (1983): 521541.
23
1959, America was enthralled by the virtuous, no nonsense, able and professional
astronauts who put a very human face on the grandest technological endeavor in
history and represented the very best that we had to offer.19 From the beginning,
the press was never motivated to dig up dirt on the astronauts; rather, reporters
sought confirmation that they embodied Americas deepest virtues. They wanted
to demonstrate to their readers that the Mercury seven strode the Earth as latterday saviors whose purity coupled with noble deeds would purge this land of the evils
of communism by besting the Soviet Union on the world stage.20 Today, people
look back longingly to a simpler era when good was good and evil was evil, and,
at least in memory, heroes did not disappoint. Psychological research or, worse yet,
the faintest possibility that a mission would be compromised by psychological factors could be a public relations nightmare.
For project managers and engineers, faith in the right stuff helps cut costs
because the person can be engineered out of the equation. This faith simplifies
and speeds the design process as there is no need to waste time consulting behavior
experts. Sliding by psychological issues preserves autonomy and decision-making
power. If behavioral professionals were to serve in an advisory capacity, mission
directors would have to share control, or at least seriously consider the opinion of
behavioral experts. Why should managers complicate their task by bringing more
playerspsychologists, psychiatrists, anthropologists, human factors expertsto
the table?
For astronauts, the stereotype of the right stuff helps maintain flight status.21 It
deters snooping and prying that might suggest a real or imagined blemish that could
lead to mission disqualification, a most undesirable personal consequence. After all,
part of the heroic myth is that under the greatest of adversities, people with the
right stuff can still get the job done! Why risk all by getting involved in a research
program that could lead to new reasons for disqualification? George Low, manager
of Project Apollo, advised subordinates that identity issues, past or present, were
19. R. D. Launius, Heroes in a Vacuum: The Apollo Astronaut as Cultural Icon (American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics [AIAA] Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit,
Reno, NV, 13 January 2005), p. 4.
20. Ibid., p. 4.
21. P. A. Santy, Choosing the Right Stuff: The Psychological Selection of Astronauts and
Cosmonauts (Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood Publishing Group, 1994).
24
Behavioral Health
off-limits and that personal hang-ups should be put aside in favor of the mission.22
Michael Collins and his colleagues liked the John Waynetype image created for
the early astronauts and did not want it tarnished.23 Flying in space was a macho,
masculine endeavor, and there were those who made an effort to reserve the term
astronaut for men, referring to women who sought to fly in space as astronautrix, astro-nettes, feminauts, and space girls.24
Marc Shepanek points out that todays astronauts are very much aware of the
possible effects of stress, boredom, and many other factors on safety, performance,
and quality of life in space.25 He notes that while many of them favor research on
these topics, not all stand ready to volunteer as test subjects. The concern is that
despite strong assurances of confidentiality, one of the results of their participation
could be disqualification. This means that operational psychologists cannot also
conduct research: the role of the therapist or consulting organizational psychologist
must remain sacrosanct with no hints of dual allegiance to research.26 Many kinds of
workers, including those in the military and law enforcement, worry about breaches
of confidentiality that have adverse repercussions on their careers. Worries about a
breach of confidentiality are periodically reinforced by officials who release information despite assurances to the contrary.
Efforts to protect the astronauts image are evident in the cordon that NASA
public relations and legal teams establish to prevent outsiders from obtaining potentially damaging information, the micromanagement of astronauts public appearances, and the great care with which most astronauts comport themselves in public.
Even today, there are topics that are considered too hot to be included in otherwise comprehensive and informed discussions.
22. K. McQuaid, Race, Gender and Space Exploration: A Chapter in the Social History of
the Space Age, Journal of American Studies 41, no. 2 (2007): 405434.
23. Weitekamp, Right Stuff, Wrong Sex.
24. Ibid., p. 78.
25. M. Shepanek, Human Behavioral Research in Space: Quandaries for Research Subjects
and Researchers, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, sect. II (June 2005):
B25B30.
26. C. F. Flynn, An Operational Approach to Long-Duration Mission Behavioral Health
and Performance Factors, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, sect. II (June
2005): B42B51.
25
The right stuff is an abstraction or ideal type that living, breathing human
astronauts approximate but do not fully attain. By the beginning of the 21st century, cracks began to appear in this image. Researchers had long noted behavioral
problems in spaceflightlike environments and worried about what might happen
during future space missions. Hints of problems came from the Russian space program, which seemed more attuned to the significance of psychological issues. For
Americans, conditions that had been heralded since the 1960s became realities
in the 1990s when U.S. astronauts joined Russian cosmonauts on Mir, living and
working in space for prolonged periods of time with peers from a very different
culture. A few astronauts described some of the behavioral challenges that they
encountered in space: maintaining high performance in the face of extreme danger, loneliness, and minor conflicts with other crewmembers.27 On the debit side
of the balance sheet, members of isolated and confined groups frequently report
sleep disturbances, somatic complaints (aches, pains, and a constellation of flulike symptoms sometimes known as the space crud), heart palpitations, anxiety,
mood swings including mild depression, inconsistent motivation, and performance
decrements. Crewmembers sometimes withdraw from one another, get into conflicts with each other, or get into disputes with Mission Control. Eugene Cernan
reports that the conflicts between the Apollo 7 crew and Mission Control were
so severe that the astronauts never flew again.28 Both Bryan Burrough and Al
Holland have described some of the difficulties that U.S. astronauts experienced
on Mir.29 Burrough writes that Soyuz 21 (1976), Soyuz T-14 (1985), and Soyuz
TM-2 (1987) were shortened because of mood, performance, and interpersonal
issues. Brian Harvey wrote that psychological factors contributed to the early evacuation of a Salyut 7 crew.30 U.S. researchers and flight surgeons have acknowledged
instances of fear, anxiety, depression, sleep disorders, cognitive changes, somatiza-
27. B. Burrough, Dragonfly: NASA and the Crisis On Board Mir (New York: Harper Collins,
1998).
28. E. Cernan and D. Davis, The Last Man on the Moon: Astronaut Eugene Cernan and
Americas Race to Space (New York: St. Martins Press, 1999).
29. Burrough, Dragonfly; A. W. Holland, Psychology of Spaceflight, Journal of Human
Performance in Extreme Environments 5, no. 1 (2000): 4.
30. B. Harvey, The New Russian Space Program: From Competition to Cooperation (Chichester,
U.K.: Wiley Praxis, 1996).
26
Behavioral Health
tion, impulsive behaviors, social withdrawal, cultural misunderstandings, interpersonal frictions, and anger directed toward Mission Control. After their return, some
astronauts reported depression, substance abuse issues, marital discord, and jealousy.31 Astronauts are highly competent, task-oriented people, who, like other highly
functional adults, have the normal ups and downs in their moods and social relationships. And, as in the case of other highly functional adults, these ups and downs
can sometimes reduce their effectiveness and relationships.
It is not only the normal ups and downs of the individual astronaut that affect
the teams and their work, but also the pressures and occasionally dysfunctional
dynamics of the organization and Mission Control. The Mercury astronauts lobbied
aggressively to fly as pilots rather than to ride as mere passengers (Spam in a can)
whose spacecraft were controlled from the ground.32 H. S. F. Cooper wrote a wellpublicized account of conflict between the Skylab 4 crew and Mission Control.33 At
the heart of the matter was the overprogramming of the astronauts time. As psychologist Karl Weick described the situation:
To get the most information from this final trip in the Apollo program, ground control in Houston had removed virtually all the slack
from the astronauts schedule of activities and had treated the men
as if they were robots. To get everything in, ground control shortened meal times, reduced setup times for experiments, and made no
allowance for the fact that previous crews aboard Skylab had stowed
equipment in an unsystematic manner. The astronauts favorite pastimeswatching the sun and earthwere forbidden.34
31. Flynn, An Operational Approach; Shepanek, Human Behavioral Research in Space;

P. Suedfeld, Invulnerability, Coping, Salutogenesis, Integration: The Four Phases of Space
Psychology, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, sect. II (June 2005):
B3B12.
32. Wolfe, The Right Stuff.
33. Cooper, A House in Space.
34. K. E. Weick, Organizational Design: Organizations as Self-Designing Systems,
Organizational Dynamics (Autumn 1977): 31.
27
Thus, on 27 December 1973, the Skylab 4 astronauts conducted a daylong sitdown strike. Cooper described the crew pejoratively as hostile, irritable, and downright grumpy, while other writers have described the strike as a legitimate reaction
to overwork.35 William K. Douglas, a NASA flight surgeon, lamented both Coopers
emotionally toned reporting and peoples willingness to focus on others real or
imagined failures while overlooking greatness.36 Whatever the spin on this particular event, the lessons are clear: the same rapid pace that can be sustained for brief
sprints cannot be sustained for marathons. Give astronauts the flexibility to schedule their own activities, and allow time to look out the windows. NASA appears
to have taken the lesson to heart. In 2002, Space.coms Todd Halvorson conducted
an interview with enthusiastic ISS astronaut Susan Helms. Its not that the crew
isnt busy maintaining the station, testing the remote manipulator and conducting
science, its that there remains enough time to look out the window, do somersaults
in weightlessness, watch movies, and sit around chatting.37
Spaceflight also offers opportunities for psychological growth and development.38 Training for and working in space allows people to develop their abilities,
gain a strong sense of accomplishment, and feel worthwhile. There is unparalleled challenge, the opportunity to redefine ones place in the cosmos. There is the
exhilarating feeling, as Harrison Schmitt wrote, of actually being there.39 Walter
Cunningham wrote, It has caused me to seek a challenge wherever I can find one,
to charge ahead and never look back . . . that feeling of omnipotence is worth all
that it takes to get there.40 Many of the two dozen or so astronauts and cosmo-
36. William K. Douglas, Psychological and Sociological Aspects of Manned Spaceflight, in
From Antarctica to Outer Space, ed. Harrison et al., pp. 8188.
37. T. Halvorson, ISS Astronaut Susan Helms: Space Is More Than a Nice Place to Visit,
available at http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/iss_freetime_010615.html, 15 June
2001 (accessed 23 June 2010).
38. A. A. Harrison and J. E. Summit, How Third Force Psychology Might View Humans in
Space, Space Power 10 (1991): 85203.
39. H. Schmidt, The Millennium Project, in Strategies for Mars: A Guide for Human
Exploration, ed. C. Stoker and C. Emmart (San Diego: American Astronautical Society/
Univelt, 1996), p. 37.
40. W. Cunningham, The All-American Boys (New York: Macmillan, 1977), p. 27.
28
Behavioral Health
nauts interviewed by Frank White reported overview effects, truly transformative

experiences including senses of wonder and awe, unity with nature, transcendence,
and universal brotherhood.41 More recent testimonials concerning the psychological benefits of life in space come from Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell and
Shuttle-Mir astronaut-cosmonaut Jerry Linenger.42 Astronauts and cosmonauts like
the sense of adventure, camaraderie, and grandeur in space.43
We find hints of long-term physical and mental health benefits to life in challenging environments. For example, a long-term followup study of Navy personnel who had wintered in Antarctica revealed that following their return, they had
undergone fewer hospitalizations than their peers who had identical qualifications
but whose orders to go to the South Pole were rescinded as the result of an arbitrary
administrative decision.44 Studies of the mental health of cosmonauts conducted
two or three years after their return to Earth found that they had become less anxious, hypochondriacal, depressive, and aggressive.45 The most plausible explanation
is that during their stay in tough environments, people develop coping skills, that
is, ways of dealing with challenge and stress that continue to serve them well long
after they have returned from their expedition.
It was about the time astronauts began traveling on Mir and the ISS that
greater evidence of psychology began to show in the U.S. space program. NASAs
Bioastronautics Critical Path Roadmap (BCPR) is one piece of evidence.
Bioastronautics was NASAs shorthand for life in space, and the BCPR was a framework for identifying the knowledge that NASA needs for future space missions.46
It identified and assigned priorities to the biomedical and behavioral questions that
must be addressed (and the kinds of countermeasures that must be designed) for
41. F. White, The Overview Effect (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987).

42. E. Mitchell and D. Williams, The Way of the Explorer (New York: Putnam, 1996); J. M.
Linenger, Off the Planet (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000).
43. Suedfeld, Invulnerability, Coping, Salutogenesis, Integration.
44. L. A. Palinkas, Group Adaptation and Individual Adjustment in Antarctica: A Summary
of Recent Research, in From Antarctica to Outer Space, ed. Harrison et al., pp. 239252.
45. V. I. Myasnikov and I. S. Zamaletdinov, Psychological States and Group Interaction of
Crew Members in Flight, in Humans in Spaceflight, ed. C. L. Huntoon, V. Antipov, and A. I.
Grigoriev, vol. 3, bk. 2 (Reston, VA: AIAA, 1996), pp. 419431.
46. Bioastronautics Critical Path Roadmap, available at http://bioastroroadmap.nasa.gov/index.jsp
(accessed 30 March 2008).
29
Space Station, lunar, and Mars missions. The BCPR represented a major investment of time and energy, of soliciting and responding to expert advice, and of
building consensus. It recognized that NASAs organizational chart was not isomorphic with the way that research is traditionally organized and tried assiduously to address crucial gaps. The BCPR was a useful mechanism for organizing
biomedical and behavioral research and fostered research that yielded operationally relevant results. Most importantly, it represented a higher level of buy-in
to behavioral research on the part of the space agency. Recently, the BCPR has
evolved into the Human Research Program. As of January 2010, six elements compose the Human Research Program. They are the International Space Station
Medical Project, Space Radiation, Human Health Countermeasures, Exploration
Medical Capability, Behavioral Health and Performance, and Space Human Factors
and Habitability.47 As the mission of NASA changes, the exact delineation of the
Human Research Program may also change.
Also coincident with turn-of-the-millennium space station missions was the
initiation of the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI), a consortium of universities and businesses dedicated to solving the problems of astronauts
who are undertaking long-duration missions. The NSBRI is best viewed as tightly
networked centers of excellence. Members of affiliated organizations form interdisciplinary teams that cut across organizational boundaries and draw strength from
one another. The Institute also provides workshops and retreats for investigators
who are working under the NSBRI umbrella.
Many of the research interests represented in the NSBRI are clearly biomedicalfor example, bone and muscle loss, immune disorders, and radiation effects.
Other teams include neurobehavioral and psychosocial factors and human performance. For instance, there are studies of crew composition, structure, communication, and leadership style. Also, there is research on methods to prevent sleep
loss, promote wakefulness, reduce human error, and optimize mental and physical
performance during long-duration spaceflight. Whereas many organizations hope
to extrapolate studies of Earth-bound populations to astronauts and cosmonauts,
47. Human Research Program Evidence Book, available at http://humanresearch.jsc.nasa.gov/

elements/smo/hrp_evidence_book.asp (accessed 23 June 2010); NASA, Human Research Program,
available at http://humanresearch.jsc.nasa.gov/about.asp (accessed 25 March 2008).
30
Behavioral Health
NSBRI partners hope that their research on spacefarers and analogs will benefit
people on Earth.
In 2003, NASA commissioned a workshop on spaceflight behavioral health.
The primary purpose of this workshop was to bring together researchers and practitioners in an effort to identify research gaps and produce an archival record for
use by managers, established behavioral health researchers, and newcomers to the
field.48 Also, and perhaps most important since the mid-1990s, astronauts have
begun to respond to questionnaires on such topics as noise levels and communication.49 Astronauts have taken part in flight studies involving sleep and circadian
rhythms and have taken self-administered tests of cognitive ability, maintained
diaries, and provided other information from orbit.50 Compared to those of earlier
years, many of todays astronauts are more willing to participate in ground-based
and in-flight studies, given proper assurances of confidentiality.
We suggest that the NASA-Mir missions opened a window of opportunity for
fruitful reevaluation of the role of behavior, including psychosocial adaptation, in
U.S. space missions. When extended-duration missions moved from the abstract
and theoretical to the real and some astronauts broached topics like risk, loneliness,
and culture conflicts, psychological factors were brought into sharp focus. In policy studies, a window of opportunity opens when a major, unexpected catastrophe
(known as a focusing event) becomes known to policy-makers and the public at the
same time.51 Certainly, minor problems on Mir were far removed from catastrophic,
48. A. A. Harrison, New Directions in Spaceflight Behavioral Health: A Workshop
Integrating Research and Application, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6,
sect. II (June 2005): B3B12.
49. A. D. Kelly and N. Kanas, Crewmember Communications in Space: A Survey of
Astronauts and Cosmonauts, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 63 (1992): 721
726; A. D. Kelly and N. Kanas, Leisure Time Activities in Space: A Survey of Astronauts
and Cosmonauts, Acta Astronautica 32 (1993): 451457; A. D. Kelly and N. Kanas,
Communication Between Space Crews and Ground Personnel: A Survey of Astronauts and
Cosmonauts, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 64 (1993): 795800.
50. M. M. Mallis and C. W. DeRoshia, Circadian Rhythms, Sleep, and Performance in
Space, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, sect. II (June 2005): B94
B107; R. L. Kane, P. Short, W. E. Sipes, and C. F. Flynn, Development and Validation of
the Spaceflight Cognitive Assessment Tool for Windows (WinSCAT), Aviation, Space, and
51. T. A. Birkland, Focusing Events, Mobilization, and Agenda Setting, Journal of Public
Policy 18, no. 1 (1997): 5374.
31
but behavioral issues gained salience and became known to NASA officials and the
public at the same time. The astronauts experiences on Mir opened a window that
generated interest in spaceflight behavioral health.
In 1984, Robert Helmreich pointed out that in contrast to Americans, the
Russians seemed to have always maintained a certain degree of interest in psychosocial adaptation.52 He reprinted several quotes from cosmonauts showing interest
in psychosocial adjustment, group dynamics, and related topics, and he pointed to
the publication of a collection of papers on space psychology by Petrov, Lomov, and
Samsonov.53 Nick Kanas and his associates have written extensively on the role of
psychology in the Soviet and then Russian space programs and have highlighted
the potential value of this research for NASA.54 By the mid-1980s, Oleg Gazenko,
head of Soviet space medicine, concluded that the limitations of living in space
are not medical, but psychological.55 Quotes from cosmonaut diaries and Soviet/
Russian reports remain popular for illustrating the importance of stress, mental
health, crew dynamics, and the like, in part because for a long time, neither NASA
support personnel nor astronauts themselves freely commented on such issues.
In the early 1970s, there were only three crewed missions, and then Americas
House in Space, Skylab, was abandoned. The United States invested in the
Shuttle, which supports fairly large crews, but for only short times in space. America
expected a space station, but it was not approved until 1984, and the station itself
underwent several iterations (Space Station, Space Station Alpha, and Space
Station Freedom) before becoming the ISS. The Soviets, on the other hand, moved
directly into the era of Salyut and Mir space station missions. For them, extendedduration missionsand focusing events in the area of behavioral healthbecame
52. R. L. Helmreich, Applying Psychology to Outer Space: Unfulfilled Promises Revisited,

American Psychologist 38 (1983): 445450; Santy, Choosing the Right Stuff.
53. B. N. Petrov, B. F. Lomov, and N. D. Samsonov, eds., Psychological Problems of Spaceflight
(Moscow: Nauka Press, 1979).
54. N. Kanas, Psychosocial Factors Affecting Simulated and Actual Space Missions,
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 56, no. 8 (August 1985): 806811; N. Kanas,
Psychosocial Support for Cosmonauts, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 62, no.
4 (August 1991): 353355; N. Kanas, V. P. Salnitskiy, J. B. Ritsher, V. I. Gushin, D. S. Weiss,
S.A. Saylor, O. P. Kozerenko, and C. R. Marmar, Human Interactions in Space: ISS vs.
Shuttle/Mir, Acta Astronautica 59 (2006): 413419.
55. J. E. Oberg and A. R. Oberg, Pioneering the Space Frontier (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1986).
32
Behavioral Health
a reality decades ago. As Connors and her associates wrote in 1986, The Russians
have experienced longer spaceflights than their American counterparts and have
given considerable attention to ways of maintaining individuals psychological health and high morale in space.... In the Soviet Union, the Group for
Psychological Support is an acknowledged and welcomed component of the ground
team. Concern over such issues as intragroup compatibility and the effects of boredom on productivity seem to be actively studied by cosmonauts and psychologists
alike. There appears to be little if any loss of status associated with confirmation of
psychological or social problems associated with confinement in space.56
Thus, Russians had to confront in the 1970s issues that became pressing for
Americans two decades later. As a result, when looking for models for a psychological support program, NASA turned to the Russian program to support cosmonauts
on Mir.57 It is interesting that Americas international partners in spaceEuropean
as well as Japaneseshare the Russians interest in spaceflight psychology.58
A S T R O N AU T S E L E C T I O N
NASA, chartered as a civilian space agency, initially intended to select

Mercury astronauts from a relatively broad range of explorers: military and commercial aviators; mountain climbers; polar explorers; bathysphere operators; and
other fit, intelligent, highly motivated individuals who had demonstrated capabilities for venturing into dangerous new areas. Strong pressure from the White House
limited the pool to military test pilots.59 This was a group of accomplished fliers,
many of whom had braved death during war. They brought with them the sharp
wits, relentless motivation, and strong emotional control that characterize pilots
who are willing to push themselves and their aircraft to (and sometimes beyond)
56. M. M. Connors, A. A. Harrison, and F. R. Akins, Psychology in the Resurgent Space

Program, American Psychologist 41, no. 8 (August 1986): 906913.
57. W. E. Sipes and S. T. Vander Ark, Operational Behavioral Health and Performance
Resources for International Space Station Crews and Families, Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, sect. II (June 2005): B3.
58. Santy, Choosing the Right Stuff.
59. Ibid.
33
the limits. Furthermore, because they were under military command, they were used
to taking orders and were already cleared for top-secret technology. Mercury candidates had to be under 40 years of age, have graduated from college with a bachelors degree in science or engineering, have logged at least 1,500 hours flying jet
planes, and have graduated from test pilot school. Of course, they were expected to
be free of disease or illness and to demonstrate resistance to the physical stressors
of spaceflight, such as temperature extremes and rapid acceleration and deceleration. To fit in the cramped confines of the Mercury capsule, their height could not
exceed 5 feet 9 inches. The first astronauts had five duties: survive, perform effectively, add reliability to the automated system, complement instrument and satellite observation with scientific human observation, and improve the flight system
through human engineering capabilities.60
The initial Mercury project used two psychological approaches to selection.
One was the industrial-organizational model of select-in characteristics emphasizing astronaut proficiencies needed to successfully complete mission tasks. The
second was the psychiatric-clinical psychology model of select-out characteristics.
As Robert Voas and Raymond Zedekar point out, psychological qualifications fell
into two categories: abilities and personality.61 In terms of aptitude and ability, they
include high intelligence, general scientific knowledge and research skills, a good
understanding of engineering, knowledge of operational procedures for aircraft and
missiles, and psychomotor skills such as those used to operate aircraft. As regards
personality, astronauts were to demonstrate a strong motivation to participate in
the program, high tolerance for stress, good decision-making skills, emotional maturity, and the ability to work with others.
At that time, of 508 military test pilots, 110 met the general requirements and
69 were considered highly qualified. These were invited to the Pentagon for a briefing and interviews. Then, 32 were sent to the Lovelace clinic for an extraordinary
physical exam and, after certification at Lovelace, to Wright Air Development
Center in Dayton, Ohio, for tests of performance under stress. Here, the candidates
were subjected to vibration, acceleration and deceleration, sitting with their feet
60. M. M. Link, Space Medicine in Project Mercury (Washington, DC: NASA, 1965).
61. R. Voas and R. Zedekar, Astronaut Selection and Training, chap. 10 in Mercury
Project Summary Including the Results of the Fourth Manned Orbital Flight, May 15 and 16, 1963
(Washington, DC: Office of Scientific and Technical Information, NASA, October 1963).
34
Behavioral Health
in tubs of ice water, and numerous psychological and psychiatric evaluations. They
completed 13 tests on personality and motivation, and another dozen or so on intelligence and aptitudes. NASA historians offer the following observation:
Two of the more interesting personality and motivation studies
seemed like parlor games at first, until it became evident how profound an exercise in Socratic introspection was implied by conscientious answers to the test questions Who am I and Whom
would you assign to the mission if you could not go yourself?....
Candidates who proceeded this far in the selection process all agreed
with the one who complained Nothing is sacred any more.62
After five Mercury flights, NASA officials decided that, given the absence
of serious performance deficits to date, there was no need to continue exhaustive
testing procedures. Although ongoing research would have provided an excellent
basis for refining selection methods, by the end of 1962, NASA had prohibited
research teams from collecting data on astronaut job performance, thus making
it impossible to validate selection methods. At that point, according to Patricia
Santys authoritative work, Choosing the Right Stuff: The Psychological Assessment
of Astronauts and Cosmonauts, normal reluctance to participate in psychological
research was transformed into outright hostility.63 Psychiatric and psychological data from the Mercury program were confiscated, and researchers were told
that apart from incomplete information that had already appeared in an obscure
interim report, nothing could be published about astronaut psychology. The reasons for this are not entirely clearfor example, confidentiality was a growing
concern, and data that could provide a basis for invidious comparisons could
work against crew moralebut Santy favors the view that NASA became fearful that information on the psychological status and performance of their astronauts would be detrimental to the agency.64
62. Mercury Program Overview, available at http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/history/mercury/

mercury-overview.htm (accessed 4 December 2007).
63. Santy, Choosing the Right Stuff, p. 29.
64. Ibid., p. 29.
35
She also documents the minimal role that psychiatrists and psychologists
played in the selection process from Gemini until well into the early Shuttle missions.65 In the beginning of the astronaut program, original psychological selection attempted to pick the best-qualified candidates from a very capable group of
experienced pilots, but by the 1980s, the selection process simply made sure that
candidates were qualified based on the evaluators opinion. Thus in 1983, Jones
and Annes could claim that no psychological testing was involved. Rather, the
approach had evolved into an entirely psychiatric process completed by two psychiatrists who separately interviewed each candidate. Whereas the original examination sought the best-qualified candidates, later procedures simply ensured that
each candidate met the minimum qualifications.66
Candidates were no longer rated against one another, but they were screened
for various psychopathologic conditions that could be detrimental or unsafe in a
space environment. This screening, although conducted by expert aviation psychiatrists, did not have specific and objective criteria by which to rate each candidate.
The emphasis was on selecting-out those candidates whose psychological structure
would be detrimental in a space environment. Neuroses, personality disorders, fear
of flying, disabling phobias, substance abuse, the use of psychotropic medications,
or any other psychiatric conditions that would be hazardous to flight safety or mission accomplishment were among the grounds for rejection.
Thus, a selection program that began in 1959 as a model rooted in psychiatry
and clinical psychology, and in industrial and organizational psychology, had been
reduced to subjective evaluation. Patricia Santy provides more detail on how psychiatric evaluations were conducted by two psychiatric consultants who did not
collaborate, use a standardized psychiatric interview, or keep detailed documentation, and who used their own subjective sets of psychological criteria in the course
of the evaluation.67 She reviewed the percentage of female and male candidates disqualified psychiatrically. She found that one of the two psychiatrists hired to help
in the screening process between 1977 and 1985 psychiatrically disqualified 40.7
65. Ibid.
66. D. R. Jones and C. A. Annes, The Evolution and Present Status of Mental Health
Standards for Selection of USAF Candidates for Space Missions, Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine 54 (1983): 730734.
67. Santy, Choosing the Right Stuff.
36
Behavioral Health
percent of the female candidates and 7.5 percent of the male candidates. However,
since no specific documentation existed, there was no way to know the reasoning
behind his decisions.68 This is not to say that the psychiatric consultants did a poor
job of selecting-out; because no validation studies were completed, there is no evidence by which to evaluate their work.
Under the leadership of psychiatrist Patricia Santy and psychologist Al Holland
in the 1980s, and then, in the 1990s, psychiatrist Christopher Flynn, there was
a gradual return to evidence- and normative-based astronaut selection. In 1988,
a biobehavioral research laboratory was formed within the Space Biomedical
Research Institute (SBRI), which at that time was a branch of NASAs Medical
Sciences Division, along with Medical Operations. Michael Bungo headed SBRI;
Patricia Santy was the director of the laboratory; and psychologist Al Holland
became her deputy. The Biobehavioral Laboratory was to develop a new working group of psychologists and psychiatrists to make recommendations on both the
operational and research needs in the areas of the behavioral sciences. At that time,
operations were expanding beyond helping to choose astronauts to providing psychological support for the astronaut corps.
The development of standardized, semistructured interviews and diagnostic criteria, aided by the work done by the Working Group on Psychiatric and
Psychological Selection of Astronauts, resulted in a rewrite of NASA psychiatric
standards based on the then-current American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual III and recommendations for a select-in process.69 The reasoning behind the select-in process harkened back to the original logic of 1959,
hypothesizing that certain psychological traits were associated with effective astronaut performance. Commencing in 1989, validation work on the select-in criteria
was begun. In describing the selection process, Laura Galarza and Al Holland note
that selection starts at the time of entry into the astronaut corps, then should continue through the training process and include selection for designated missions.70
68. Ibid.
69. Ibid.
70. L. Galarza and A. W. Holland, Selecting Astronauts for Long-Duration Missions
(SAE International Document 1999-01-2097, presented at the International Conference on
Environmental Systems, Denver, CO, July 1999); L. Galarza and A. W. Holland, Critical
Astronaut Proficiencies Required for Long-Duration Space Flight (SAE International
37
In the 1990s, Galarza and Holland began developing a scientifically defensible select-in process that would screen for personal abilities to help people live and
work within small teams under conditions of isolation and confinement.71 By using
highly qualified subject-matter experts, job analysis, and documented validation
techniques, they sought to meet the high standards for selection established by the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychologists (SIOP).72 Although these
researchers developed a profile of needed knowledge, skills, and abilities, NASAs
prohibition against obtaining in-training or on-the-job performance ratings effectively killed any longitudinal or predictive validation of the proposed astronaut
select-in procedures. Today, all astronaut candidate applicants spend several hours
completing psychological tests and then undergo extensive psychological and psychiatric interviews. To prevent coaching, the specific tests and interview content
are not publicly available. The current selection process resembles the selection
procedures for other high-risk jobs and incorporates highly validated tests that are
quantitatively scored, along with in-depth, semistructured interviews.
Well before Apollo astronauts set foot on the Moon, there were political pressures to increase the diversity of the astronaut corps by including women and representatives of different racial and ethnic groups. Accommodating people with different
cultural backgrounds became a practical matter in the Apollo-Soyuz rendezvous, in
the course of the Russian guest cosmonaut program, in Shuttle missions with international crews, and, of course, aboard the ISS. Successfully managing cultural, occupational, and other differences in space is likely to become even more crucial as
highly trained professionals are joined by industrial workers and tourists.
Margaret Weitekamp recounts how, at the inception of Project Mercury, an Air
Force flight surgeon, Don Flickenger, helped initiate a program known as WISE
Women in Space Earliest.73 Women offered certain potential advantages over men;
one of the most notable of these was their smaller size (and reduced life-support
requirements), which would make them easier to lift into orbit and keep alive at
Document 1999-01-2096, presented at the International Conference on Environmental

Systems, Denver, CO, July 1999).
71. Ibid.
72. Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Principles for the Validation and Use of
Personnel Selection Procedures (Washington, DC: SIOP, 2003).
73. Weitekamp, Right Stuff, Wrong Sex.
38
Behavioral Health
a time when engineers had to fret every extra pound of weight. After word of the
programs existence leaked, it was abandoned by the Air Force and taken over by
Dr. Randall Lovelace, of the same Lovelace Clinic that conducted the physicals for
project Mercury. Aviatrix Jackie Cochran and her wealthy philanthropist husband,
Floyd Odlum, provided funding so that Lovelace could put the women through the
same rigorous evaluation. Of the 25 women who took the physical, 13 passed. The
next step in the process, which involved centrifuges and jet flights, depended on
the availability of military facilities and equipment. Although it appeared that the
procedures could be done at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, the ability to do so depended on NASAs officially requiring and then reimbursing the
testing. Since the program was unofficial (despite widespread perceptions that it
was connected with NASA), the space agency did not intervene on the womens
behalf. Some of the women continued to press for further testing and flight training,
and, eventually, there was a congressional hearing, but public clamor and aggressive lobbying got no results. Kennedys decision to place a man on the Moon before
the decade was finished was interpreted by NASA to mean that it could not divert
resources to sending women to orbit. But there were other barriers to womens participation in space exploration, including the inability of some of the people in
NASAs white-male-dominated culture to conceive of women in the masculine
role of astronaut. Weitekamp writes:
At a very basic level, it never occurred to American decision
makers to seriously consider a woman astronaut. In the late 1950s
and early 1960s, NASA officials and other American space policy makers remained unconscious of the way their calculations
implicitly incorporated postwar beliefs about mens and womens
roles. Within the civilian space agency, the macho ethos of test
piloting and military aviation remained intact. The tacit acceptance that military jet test pilots sometimes drank too much (and
often drove too fast) complemented the expectation that women
wore gloves and high heelsand did not fly spaceships.74
74. Ibid., p. 3.
39
At that time, lack of diversity at NASA was not limited to the astronaut corps.
In 1974, Congress held a hearing on NASAs Equal Employment Opportunity
Program. The chairmans introductory remarks included the statement It is clear
that the NASA equal employment opportunity effort over the years has been inadequate . . . .75 In the congressional report, NASA admitted that as of the end of
fiscal year (FY) 1971, of all NASA employees, only 16.6 percent were women and
4.6 percent minorities.76 Only 3 percent of the supervisors and 2.4 percent of the
engineers were women.
Kim McQuaid points out that many forces worked against increasing the proportion of women and blacks at NASA.77 Nationally, efforts to increase diversity
through new employment strategies began at about the same time as NASA flourished in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Special hurdles at NASA included an
organizational culture that was built on the white-male stereotypes of the time
and demanded prior training and experience in science and engineering at a time
when very few women or minorities were earning (or were allowed to earn) degrees
in science and engineering. In 1973, thenNASA Administrator James Fletcher
hired Ruth Bates Harris as a high-level deputy director to oversee NASAs equal
opportunity employment processesbut, when it turned out that she would be a
fearless leader rather than a compliant bureaucrat, he fired her and then, under
pressure, attempted to rehire her at a lower level. This initiated bad press, conflicts
with Congress, and a series of internal struggles that brought about diversification.
In the 1990s, Administrator Dan Goldin could complain that NASA was still too
male, pale, and stale, although, two decades earlier, NASA had responded to new
domestic political issues by changing from a civil rights sham to the beginnings of
a demonstrably effective, if imperfect, affirmative action program.
Aside from the 1965 selection cycle, when the National Academy of Sciences
handled selection and allowed women to apply (none were accepted), it was not
until the Shuttle era that women were added to the astronaut corps. On 16 January
75. House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Constitutional
Rights, NASAs Equal Opportunity Program, hearings before the Subcommittee on the Judiciary,
93rd Congress, 2nd session, 1314 March 1974, p. 1.
76. Ibid., p. 13.
77. Kim McQuaid, Race, Gender and Space Exploration: A Chapter in the Social History of
the Space Age, Journal of American Studies 41, no. 2 (2007): 405434.
40
Behavioral Health
1978, the first female and black candidates were selected; only a few years later,
in 1983, the public wildly acclaimed mission specialist Sally Rides orbital flight
aboard Challenger. Some of the women who had participated in the informal womens astronaut selection program of the early 1960s felt vindicated in 1995, when
they watched pilot Eileen Collins lift off, carrying their dreams with her.78 Today,
female astronauts routinely participate in Shuttle and Space Station missions in
many different roles. Despite the long road that American women and minorities
traveled to prove their worth, the U.S. experience has shown that talented women
and minorities, given no special treatment because of gender or ethnicity, are as
adept as their white, male colleagues in the world of space.
P S Y C H O L O G I C A L S U P P O RT
Initially, psychological support for astronauts came from helpful flight surgeons,
flak-catchers who tried to minimize interference on the part of the media and the
public, as well as cheering family and friends. By means of shortwave radio, astronauts
on the ground encouraged astronauts in orbit. It is clear from Wolfes The Right Stuff
that the astronauts wives provided strong support for one another, as well as for their
husbands.79 The larger community of astronauts and their families still provides psychological support for astronauts before, during, and after their flights.
Professional psychological support for the astronauts and their families evolved
over time and gained momentum in the early space station era.80 Today, psychological support is provided in three stages: preflight, in-flight, and postflight. 81
78. Weitekamp, Right Stuff, Wrong Sex, p. 188.

79. Wolfe, The Right Stuff.
80. E. Fiedler and F. E. Carpenter, Evolution of the Behavioral Health Sciences Branch of
the Space Medicine and Health Care Systems at the Johnson Space Center, Aviation, Space,
and Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, sect. II (June 2005): B31B35; Flynn, An Operational
Approach to Long-Duration Mission Behavioral Health and Performance Factors; N. Kanas
and D. Manzey, Space Psychology and Psychiatry (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, 2003).
81. W. E. Sipes and E. Fiedler, Current Psychological Support for US Astronauts on the
International Space Station (paper presented at Tools for Psychological Support During
Exploration Missions to Mars and Moon, European Space Research and Technology Centre
[ESTEC], Noordwijk, Netherlands, 26 March 2007).
41
The NASA and Wyle Operational Psychology team, under the leadership of the
Behavioral Health and Performance Group/Space Medicine, NASA, offers preflight training and briefings in such diverse areas as self-care, conflict management
and cultural awareness, and field training. Family readiness is addressed in a briefing focused on the astronauts spouse to explain processes such as crew care packages and private family conferences. Crew care packages are containers of personal
items from family and friends that are sent via Russian Soyuz supply missions and
U.S. Space Shuttle missions to astronauts residing on the ISS. Favorite foods, surprise gifts from the family, and holiday decorations are a few of the items that have
been sent to the ISS in these shipments.
During the flight stage, in addition to the crew care packages and private weekly
videoconferences with families, psychological support services include extensive
communication with people on the ground (including Mission Control personnel, relatives, and friends), psychological support hardware and software, special
events such as surprise calls from celebrities, and semimonthly videos with a behavioral health clinician. Astronauts in flight have e-mail accessibility and can use an
Internet protocol phone on board the ISS to call back to Earth. As in the past, ham
radio allows contact between the ISS and schools throughout the world.
A month before their return to Earth, ISS astronauts are briefed on the stresses
and joys of returning home following the deployment. Postflight, there are a series
of debriefings intended to benefit the astronaut and fine-tune the psychological support program. The astronauts spouse is given the opportunity to meet with operational psychological support personnel to provide the latter with feedback on the
psychological support provided during the mission. Of course, astronauts and their
families can use counseling psychological support services at any time. While this
briefly covers the current state of the art of psychological support for astronauts on
the ISS, psychological support for lunar and Mars missions may have greater constraints and force a return to the mindset of earlier explorers and their families.
CONCLUSION
Spaceflight is both demanding and rewarding, and for many years, psychologists focused on the demanding environment and stressful effects. Throughout
the history of spaceflight, psychologists, psychiatrists, and many other professionals
42
Behavioral Health
have expressed concern that the physical, psychological, and interpersonal stressors of spaceflight could endanger a crew, undercut performance, and lower the quality of life. Episodes in spaceflight-analogous environments and a few incidents in
space suggest that although no astronauts have been recalled to Earth on the basis
of psychological and social challenges, adaptation must be taken into account.
Astronaut participation in extended-duration missions, the prospects of a return
to the Moon, continuing public enthusiasm for a mission to Mars, the reformulation of research questions following the publication of Safe Passage, and the coevolution of NASAs Bioastronautics Critical Path Roadmap and the National Space
Biomedical Research Institute initiated a new era for psychology. According to our
analysis, since the dawn of the modern space station era, there has been an increase
in both research and operational interest in spaceflight behavioral health. Slowly,
and perhaps painfully, psychology has gained greater recognition within the U.S.
space program, and there is a growing convergence of interests to target research at
operational problems.82
Current NASA administration has mandated that human research be operationally relevant. This is partly driven by funding shortages and partly by needs
to meet NASA performance standards and requirements when astronauts once
again venture beyond low-Earth orbit. The new Human Research Program documents including the Human Research Program Requirements Document and the
Human Research Program Integrated Research Plan are the bases for defining,
documenting, and allocating human research program requirements as they have
evolved from the older Bioastronautics Critical Path Roadmap and new NASA
standards and requirements that emphasize future missions. As explained on the
NASA Web site, The Human Research Program (HRP) delivers human health
and performance countermeasures, knowledge, technologies, and tools to enable
safe, reliable, and productive human space exploration. This Integrated Research
Plan (IRP) describes the programs research activities that are intended to address
the needs of human space exploration and serve IRP customers. The timescale
of human space exploration is envisioned to take many decades. The IRP illus-
82. Albert A. Harrison, Behavioral Health: Integrating Research and Application in Support
of Exploration Missions, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, sect. II (June
2005): B3B12.
43
trates the programs research plan through the timescale of early lunar missions of
extended duration.83
We can see the preliminary outlines of a comprehensive and continuing program in spaceflight behavioral health. A comprehensive program in spaceflight
behavioral health will have to be broad-based; be interdisciplinary; and address
issues at the individual, small-group, and organizational levels. It will require multiple, convergent methods including archival research, field observations, and both
field and laboratory experiments. Research falling under this umbrella must meet
high scientific standards, achieve flight certification, and be palatable to astronauts.
Only with continued interest and support from NASAand from psychologists
will spaceflight behavioral health flourish. Long-term success will require accessible, peer-reviewed publications and efforts to target young investigators to replace
those who retire. An ongoing behavioral database could prove very useful. For over
15 years, David Musson, Robert Helmreich, and their associates have been developing a database that includes astronauts as well as professionals who work in other
demanding environments.84 As they point out, this kind of database provides many
opportunities for studies in such areas as the effectiveness of recruiting and selection procedures, performance changes over time, and attrition.
Psychology is in a better position to be of help. Many of the theories and tools
that are proving useful today were not available at the dawn of the Space Age.
New (relative to 1960) resources include cognitive models, which emphasize our
information processing power, and humanistic or positive psychology models that
stress peoples positive, striving nature.85 These new models have allowed psychologists a fresh take on many important issues. Human factors psychologists benefit from modern computer modeling technologies and increasing evidence of the
importance of taking the person into account when developing a human or humanrobotic system.
83. NASA Johnson Space Center, Human Research Program Integrated Research Plan,
Supplement A1, Behavioral Health and Performance, 2008, available at http://humanresearch.jsc.
nasa.gov/elements/smo/docs/bhp_irp_supplemental_v1.pdf (accessed 21 May 2010).
84. D. M. Musson and R. L. Helmreich, Long-Term Personality Data Collection in Support
of Spaceflight Analogue Research, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, sect.
II (2005): B119B125.
85. Suedfeld, Invulnerability, Coping, Salutogenesis, Integration.
44
Behavioral Health
Research technology has changed dramatically over the past 50 years, and the
new technology has also been useful for increasing psychologys contributions to
NASA. These changes are evident wherever we look, from questionnaire construction to data analysis. Today, miniaturization and computer technology enable psychological assessments and evidence-based countermeasures that would have been
impossible in the 1960s.
Minimally intrusive techniques are particularly useful, and one of these is based on
nonintrusive computer monitoring of facial expression.86 Another approach is monitoring cognitive functioning through computer analysis of speech.87 Encouraging
astronauts to monitor their own behavior reduces the threat that performance lapses
could lead to flight disqualification. This self-monitoring has been accomplished by
means of computers and personal digital assistants (PDAs) that are programmed to
measure several dimensions of cognitive functioning (attention, information processing, and recall). Astronauts may use the results of these tests to gauge their own
preparedness to engage in a particular activity.88
While we see evidence of an expanding role, our professions future in spaceflight is by no means assured. NASAs resistance to psychology is by no means fully
overcome. NASA Administrators must still concern themselves with public relations. Project managers and engineers must still get on with their tasks within the
real constraints of cost and practicality. Astronauts remain sensitive to possible
threats to flight assignments and careers. The focusing events of Mir and the ISS
were less than two decades ago, and it is too early to tell if the new interest and
infrastructure can withstand the vagaries of funding variations or national and organizational politics.
86. D. F. Dinges, R. L. Rider, J. Dorrian, E. L. McGlinchey, N. L. Rogers, Z. Cizman,

S.K. Goldenstein, C. Vogler, S. Venkartamarian, and D. N. Metaxas, Optical Computer
Recognition of Facial Expressions Associated with Stress Induced by Performance Demands,
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, sect. II (June 2005): B172182.
87. P. Lieberman, A. Morey, J. Hochstadt, M. Larson, and S. Mather, Mount Everest: A
Space Analogue for Speech Monitoring of Cognitive Deficits and Stress, Aviation, Space, and
88. J. M. Shephard and S. M. Kosslyn, The MiniCog Rapid Assessment Battery: A Blood
Pressure Cuff for the Mind, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, sect. II
(June 2005): B192B197.
45
Chapter 3
From Earth Analogs to Space: Getting There from Here

Sheryl L. Bishop
Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health and School of Nursing
University of Texas Medical Branch
ABSTRACT
The need to find relevant terrestrial substitutes, that is, analogs, for teams operating in extraterrestrial and microgravity environments is driven by extraordinary
demands for mission success. Unlike past frontiers where failure on the part of various groups to succeed represented far more limited implications for continued progress within these environments, accidents like Challenger in 1986 and Columbia in
2003 underscored the magnified cost of failure for space missions. Where past human
frontiers were characterized by centralized decisions to engage in exploration and
development largely under the dictates of authoritarian governments or individual
sponsors, the exploration of space has been significantly influenced by the general
publics perception of acceptable risk and fiscal worthiness. To date, space missions have failed due to technological deficiencies. However, history is replete with
examples of exploration and colonization that failed due to human frailties, including those that reflect failures of the group. Both historical literature and research on
teams operating within extreme environments, including space, have clearly indicated that psychological and sociocultural factors are components critical for individual and group success. Given the limited access to the space frontier and the
investment in collective effort and resources, our ability to study individual and
group functioning in the actual space environment has been, and will continue
to be, severely limited. Thus, studying groups in terrestrial extreme environments
as analogs has been sought to provide predictive insight into the many factors that
impact group performance, health, and well-being in challenging environments.
This chapter provides an overview of the evolution of research utilizing terrestrial analogs and addresses the challenges for selecting, training, and supporting teams for long-duration space missions. An examination of how analog
47
environments can contribute to our knowledge of factors affecting functioning and

well-being at both the physiological and the psychological levels will help define
the focus for future research.
INTRODUCTION
Humans have long speculated about, studied, and striven to explore the heavens. Many of our earliest myths, such as the flight of Daedalus and Icarus too close to
the Sun on wings made of wax, expressed our desire to explore beyond the boundaries of Earth as well as our willingness to push current technology to its limits.
Considerations by the earliest philosophers and scientists, including Archimedes,
Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonardo da Vinci, Sir Isaac Newton, Jules
Verne, H.G. Wells, or Percival Lowell, eventually generated a whole new genre
of fictional literature built upon scientific extrapolations, dubbed science fiction,
and gave voice to their speculations about the nature of extraterrestrial environments. Modern scientists and pioneers led by the Wright brothers, Robert Goddard,
Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Hermann Oberth, Wernher von Braun, Sergey Korolev,
Yuri Gagarin, and Neil Armstrong pushed the boundaries of knowledge about flight
and extended human inquiry beyond our terrestrial boundaries into our local and
extended galactic neighborhood. For serious considerations of how humans will
fare in space, we have had to extrapolate from human experience on Earth in environments that challenge us in, ideally, similar ways. However, the search for space
analog environments in which to systematically study individual and group adaptation has had to grapple with some significant limitations, i.e., the impossibility
of a substitute for a microgravity or reduced-gravity environment or environments
that holistically mimic radiation profiles and their inherent danger for those beyond
Earths magnetic field. Since there is no direct equivalent for space, all analog environments are simulations of greater or lesser fidelity along varying dimensions of
interest. Some analog environments provide extremely good characterizations of
expected challenges in testing equipment or hardware, e.g., environmental chambers such as the Space Shuttle mock-ups of the various decks or the cargo bay in
NASAs Weightless Environmental Training Facility (WET-F), but lack any relevance to assessing how human operators will fare psychologically or as a team.
Others, like chamber studies, address important components of human adaptation,
48
e.g., confinement, but fail utterly to incorporate true environmental threats. Others
allow for the impact of true dangerous, unpredictable environments but lack any
way to systematically compare across specific environments. The spectrum of fidelity to space among terrestrial analogs ranges from laboratory studies where the
impact of environmental threat and physical hardship, as well as true isolation and
confinement, are limited and, even, sometimes absent, to real teams in real, extreme
environments characterized by very little control over extraneous variables.
This, then, is the challenge. Unlike the testing of hardware, where various
components can be reliably evaluated separately, the study of humans, and teams
in particular, is a dynamic endeavor requiring in situ study of the collective. To
develop reliable protocols based on empirical evidence to select, monitor, and support teams effectively in space necessarily involves the demand to study teams in
analog environments that replicate a wide range of physiological, psychological,
and psychosocial factors interacting both with the environment and within the
team. The high degree of reliance on technology for life support, task performance,
and communication must be integrated with new measurement methodologies to
overcome heretofore intrusive measurement modalities. The growing frequency of
multinational and multicultural teams and the demand for longer-duration missions both further compound the complexity of the challenge. While the primary
goal has been the insurance of human health and well-being, the expectation has
been that such priorities will naturally lead to improved chances for performance
and mission success. Yet achieving this goal depends largely on how well our analogs prepare us for living and working in space.
Analogs for human individual and group performance in space has involved two
basic approaches: 1) constructing an environment within a laboratory setting with
maximum control over extraneous variables and utilizing volunteer research subjects
or 2) studying naturally occurring real-world groups in real environments characterized
by a number of confounds.1 Each comes with its own limitations and strengths. In any
evaluation of the value of the analog, the pros and cons of each environment need to
1. W. Haythorn and I. Altman, Personality Factors in Isolated Environments, in

Psychological Stress: Issues in Research, ed. M. Trumbull (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
1966); J. P. Zubek, Sensory Deprivation: Fifteen Years of Research (New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts, 1969).
49
be kept in mind. This is especially true when assessing the generalizability of insight of
psychosocial factors from substitute environments for space.
Before we began deliberately constructing controlled laboratory environments,
there were the records of early expeditionary explorations into various places on
Earth.2 The tradition of publishing personal diaries and mission recounts has been
similarly observed by the earliest explorers of space.3 Secondary analyses of historical expeditions have become increasingly popular in recent years.4 The very
character of natural environments typically guarantees that there will be at least
some, if not substantial, periods of inaccessibility, lack of communication or contact, little accessibility of real-time support, and great demands on individuals and
groups to engage in autonomous decision-making, problem-solving, conflict resolution, self-monitoring, and self-regulation. These demands inherently build in the
potential for conflict with external mission support personnel and researchers who
find adherence to mission schedules and timelines far easier to maintain than do
those actually on the mission. Shared perspective between these groups becomes
increasingly difficult to promote as mission duration, distance, and environmental
demands play larger roles in daily decisions of the teams than do seemingly arbitrary mission schedules.
Measurement of these factors is compromised as teams become preoccupied
with dealing with the environment, become antagonistic to external evaluation,
become noncompliant with schedules that become unimportant to participants,
and engage in a general reprioritization of activities that emphasizes near-term,
more salient goals (e.g., personal comfort, leisure) over and above long-term
mission goals (e.g., study data). Such difficulties have raised questions about the
worth of studying groups in real-world environments. In actuality, these conditions
are exactly what is needed to simulate space missions that have grown in duration,
2. A. Greely, Three Years of Arctic Service: An Account of the Lady Franklin Bay Expedition of
18811884, and the Attainment of the Farthest North (New York: Scribner, 1886); V.Stefansson,
The Adventure of Wrangel Island (New York: MacMillan Company, 1925); R.Pearce,
Marooned in the Arctic: Diary of the Dominion Explorers Expedition to the Arctic, August
to December 1929, Northern Miner (Winnipeg, MB, 1930).
3. V. Lebedev, Diary of a Cosmonaut: 211 Days in Space (College Station, TX: Phytoresource
Research, Inc., 1988); J. Lovell and J. Kluger, Apollo 13 [Lost Moon: The Perilous Voyage of
Apollo 13] (New York: Pocket Books, 1994).
4.
50
J. Stuster, Bold Endeavors (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1996).
distance from Earth, complexity, and challenge. However, space missions will also
be, at least for the foreseeable future, characterized by an extraordinary degree of
control, from selecting who goes to establishing the daily details of mission tasks
and scheduleselements that are far more variable in real-world groups, such as
those in Antarctica or part of polar or mountaineering expeditions. In real-world
groups that have higher degrees of structure and control, such as military teams,
the command and control structure is distinctly different from the current scientistastronaut organizational structure of space missions. Fundamental differences in
group structures, such as leadership and authority, represent significant elements in
whether findings from terrestrial analogs translate to future space crews.
The need for control over the inherent chaos of real-world environments in
order to definitively identify critical factors that affect individual and group performance was the driver behind the development of constructed environments of various complexities. Useful data from such artificial environments depend on whether
participants are truly immersed in the fiction of a simulation and are responding
in the same way they would if the environment were real. This is the paradox
researchers in analog environments face: In laboratory studies, the very attributes of
the environment that have the greatest impact on performance are removed (e.g.,
real danger, uncontrolled events, situational ambiguity, uncertainty, or the interaction with the extreme environment itself). If these features are compromised, as
many have argued, then is there value in conducting such laboratory studies?5 On
the pro side, laboratory chamber studies have provided opportunities to evaluate
methods of monitoring psychological and interpersonal parameters for subsequent
application during real flights and have identified issues that might cause psychological and interpersonal problems in space. They have also provided empirical evidence for a number of behavioral issues anecdotally reported from space, e.g., the
tendency of crews to direct aggression toward personnel at Mission Control.6 They
5. L. A. Palinkas, On the ICE: Individual and Group Adaptation in Antarctica, 2003,

available at http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/bec/papers/Palinkas_On_The_Ice.pdf (accessed 12
June 2007); P. Suedfeld, What Can Abnormal Environments Tell Us About Normal People?
Polar Stations as Natural Psychological Laboratories, Journal of Environmental Psychology 18
(1998): 95.
6. N. Kanas, V. Salnitskiy, E. M. Grund, et al., Social and Cultural Issues During Shuttle/
Mir Space Missions, Acta Astronautica 47 (2000): 647; G. M. Sandal, R. Vaernes, and
H.Ursin, Interpersonal Relations During Simulated Space Missions, Aviation, Space, and
51
are well suited to first-line inquiry when there is a need to investigate the characteristics of a particular phenomenon suspected of being present. However, complexity is a key defining trait of stressed operational environments. Total reliance
on laboratory studies and the presumption of broad generalizability, particularly for
research on high-stress, high-risk environments, is highly likely to lead to dissociation between actual operational findings and laboratory and experimental studies.7 Conversely, data on real-world groups situated in extreme environments has
provided insight into a host of factors that impact group performance, health, and
well-being emergent from the interaction between the individual, the team, and
the environment. The differences found between studies conducted in experimentally controlled chambers and those conducted in messy, noisy, in situ real environments appears to be due to the critical presence of real environmental threat and
physical hardship, as well as true isolation and confinement, which have proven
to be key factors in individual and group coping. Additionally, when comparing
extreme environments with non-extreme natural environments in which people
normally operate, the level, intensity, rate of change, and diversity of physical and
social stimuli, as well as behavior settings and possible behaviors within an extreme
environment, are far more restricted.8
Thus, real teams in extreme environments have validated or corrected findings
from chamber studies where critical environmental factors are typically absent or
blunted. Real extreme environments allow us to examine various aspects of the psychophysiological relationship that are essential to fully understanding the adaptation
Environmental Medicine 66 (1995): 617; V. I. Gushin, V. A. Kolintchenko, V. A. Efimov, and
C.Davies, Psychological Evaluation and Support During EXEMSI, in Advances in Space
Biology and Medicine, ed. S. Bonting (London: JAI Press, Inc., 1996), p. 283; V. I. Gushin, T.B.
Zaprisa, V.A. Kolintchenko, A. Efimov, T. M. Smirnova, A.G. Vinokhodova, and N.Kanas,
Content Analysis of the Crew Communication with External Communicants Under
Prolonged Isolation, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 12 (1997): 1093.
7. A. D. Baddeley, Selecting Attention and Performance in Dangerous Environments, British
Journal of Psychology 63 (1972): 537; G. W. McCarthy, Operational Relevance of Aeromedical
Laboratory Research, abstract no. 24 (paper presented as part of the Aerospace Medical
Associations 69th Annual Scientific Meeting, Seattle, WA, 1721 May 1988), p. 57; J.D. Mears
and P. J. Cleary, Anxiety as a Factor in Underwater Performance, Ergonomics 23, no. 6 (1980):
549; G. Wilson, J. Skelly, and B. Purvis, Reactions to Emergency Situations in Actual and
Simulated Flight (presented as a paper at the Aerospace Medical Panel Symposium, The Hague,
Netherlands, 1989).
8.
52
Suedfeld, What Can Abnormal Environments Tell Us About Normal People?: 95.
of humans to the stresses of these environments and, ultimately, to space. Space, of

course, will be the final testing ground for our accumulated knowledge. But are we
stuck with choosing between chamber studies and naturally occurring opportunistic
teams in real extreme environments? A more recent, hybrid approach of situating
research facilities within extreme environments offers a good compromise between
the artificial conditions of the laboratory and the open-ended, full access of an expeditionary mission. When teams or individuals operate in extreme environments,
their responses are more purely a product of either situational drivers or internal personal characteristics. To the extent that an extreme environment is well characterized and known, it gains in fidelity and allows more accurate inferences about key
phenomena to be drawn. For these very reasons, Palinkas has strongly argued that
the cumulative experience with year-round presence in Antarctica makes it an ideal
laboratory for investigating the impact of seasonal variation on behavior, gaining
understanding about how biological mechanisms and psychological processes interact, and allowing us to look at a variety of health and adaptation effects.9
P S Y C H O L O G Y A N D S PA C E
One important fact, which has emerged during decades of research,

is that in the study of capsule environments there are few main
effect variables. Almost every outcome is due to an interaction
among a host of physical and social environmental variables and
personality factors. Thus, although we conceptually deconstruct
the situation into particular sources of variance, we must remember that how people experience an environment is more important than the objective characteristics of the environment.10
Investigations into psychological and psychosocial adaptation to extreme environments as substitutes for space are recent phenomena. Expeditions and forays
9.
Palinkas, On the ICE.
10. P. Suedfeld and G. D. Steel, The Environmental Psychology of Capsule Habitats, Annual
Review of Psychology 51 (2000): 230.
53
into these environments have historically been for the purposes of exploration,
and the primary metric of successful adaptation was survival. One could argue that
chronicles such as the Iliad and the Odyssey were early examples of more recent diaries such as those that recounted the historic race to reach the South Pole between
modern polar expeditions lead by Roald Amundsen, who reached the South Pole in
1911, and Robert F. Scott, who reached the South Pole in 1912. Humans have been
periodically living and working in Antarctica, one of the most challenging environments on Earth, for over a hundred years. The first winter-over in Antarctica
occurred during 189899 on board an icebound ship, the Belgica, on which
Amundsen served as a second mate. A continuous presence on our furthermost
southern continent has only been in place since the International Geophysical Year
of 195657. Systematic research on isolated, confined environments can arguably
be dated as beginning as recently as the late 1950s by the military, and much of the
early work focused on purely physiological parameters. In their seminal collection
of papers dealing with isolated environments from Antarctica to outer space, A.A.
Harrison et al. pointed out that early work on psychological factors in extreme environments is often recounted as beginning with C.S. Mullins research on states of
consciousness; E.K.E. Gunderson and colleagues comprehensive work on adaptation to Antarctica; and classic laboratory studies on group dynamics conducted by
I.Altman, W.W. Haythorn, and associates.11
Regardless of which analog is used to understand what helps or hinders individuals and groups in functioning well under extreme environmental challenges, it is
necessary to characterize what we need to know for space. Although specific conditions of the setting vary, most extreme environments share common characteristics:
1)a high reliance on technology for life support and task performance; 2)notable degrees of physical and social isolation and confinement; 3)inherent high risks
11. A. A. Harrison, Y. A. Clearwater, and C. P. McKay, From Antarctica to Outer Space:
Life in Isolation and Confinement (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1991); C. S. Mullin, Some
Psychological Aspects of Isolated Antarctic Living, American Journal of Psychiatry 111 (1960):
323; E. K. E. Gunderson, Individual Behavior in Confined or Isolated Groups, in Man in
Isolation and Confinement, ed. J. Rasmussen (Chicago: Aldine, 1973), p. 145; E.K.E.Gunderson,
Psychological Studies in Antarctica, in Human Adaptability to Antarctic Conditions, ed. E.K.E.
Gunderson (Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union, 1974), p. 115; I. Altman, An
Ecological Approach to the Functioning of Isolated and Confined Groups, in Man in Isolation
and Confinement, ed. Rasmussen, p. 241; W.W. Haythorn, The Miniworld of Isolation:
Laboratory Studies, in Man in Isolation and Confinement, ed. Rasmussen, p. 219.
54
and associated costs of failure; 4)high physical/physiological, psychological, psychosocial, and cognitive demands; 5)multiple critical interfaces (human-human,
human-technology, and human-environment); and 6)critical requirements for team
coordination, cooperation, and communication.12 This last is not insignificant. The
accumulated knowledge to date is still fairly rudimentary, given the short historical emergence of the Space Age. Drawing on research from a number of fields
(e.g., social psychology, human factors, military science, management, anthropology, and sociology), researchers easily identified a number of factors that need further
investigation. As early as the 1980s, psychological and sociocultural issues had been
acknowledged by the National Commission on Space (1986), the National Science
Board (1987), and the Space Science Board (1987) to be critical components to mission success, as robust evidence from Antarctica clearly showed psychological issues
to impact human behavior and performance significantly in most challenging environments, especially those characterized by isolation and confinement.13 Studies in
a variety of analog environments, e.g., Antarctica, underwater capsules, submarines,
caving and polar expeditions, and chamber studies, have confirmed that mission
parameters have a significant influence upon the type of best-fit crew needed and
have isolated a number of psychosocial issues that may negatively affect crewmembers during multinational space missions.14 These issues include 1)tension resulting
12. S. L. Bishop, Psychological and Psychosocial Health and Well-Being at Pole Station, in
Project Boreas: A Station for the Martian Geographic North Pole, ed. Charles S. Cockell (London:
British Interplanetary Society, 2006), p. 160.
13. National Science Board, The Role of the National Science Foundation in Polar Regions
(Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1987); Space Science Board, A Strategy for
Space Biology and Medical Science (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1987); National
Commission on Space, Pioneering the Space Frontier (New York: Bantam Books, 1986).
14. L. A. Palinkas, E. K. E. Gunderson, and R. Burr, Social, Psychological, and Environmental
Influences on Health and Well-Being of Antarctic Winter-Over Personnel, Antarctic Journal
of the United States 24 (1989): 207; L. A. Palinkas, Sociocultural Influences on Psychosocial
Adjustment in Antarctica, Medical Anthropology 10 (1989): 235; L. A. Palinkas, Psychosocial
Effects of Adjustment in Antarctica: Lessons for Long-Duration Spaceflight, Journal of
Spacecraft 27, no. 5 (1990): 471; L. A. Palinkas, Effects of Physical and Social Environments
on the Health and Well Being of Antarctic Winter-Over Personnel, Environment 23 (1991):
782; C.Anderson, Polar PsychologyCoping With It All, Nature 350, no. 6316 (28 March
1991): 290; H.Ursin, Psychobiological Studies of Individuals in Small Isolated Groups in
the Antarctic and Space Analogue, Environment and Behavior 6 (23 November 1991): 766;
L.Palinkas, E.K.E. Gunderson, and A.W. Holland, Predictors of Behavior and Performance
in Extreme Environments: The Antarctic Space Analogue Program, Aviation, Space, and
55
from external stress, 2)factors related to crew heterogeneity (e.g., differences in personality, gender, and career motivation); 3)variability in the cohesion of the crew;
4)improper use of leadership role (e.g., task/instrumental versus emotional/ supportive); 5)cultural differences; and 6)language differences. Of particular uniqueness
to challenging environments is the fact that successful performance requires competent team interaction, including coordination, communication, and cooperation.
The functioning of the operational team often determines the success or failure of
the mission. Experience in spaceflight, aviation, polar, and other domains indicates
that the stressors present in extreme environments, such as fatigue, physical danger, interpersonal conflict, automation complexity, risk, and confusion, often challenge team processes. The contribution of interpersonal and intrapersonal factors
is substantial. For instance, a robust body of evidence from both civilian and military aviation identifies the majority of aircraft accidents as due to human and crewrelated performance factors.15 Analyses of critical incidents in medical operating
Environmental Medicine 71 (2000): 619; S.L. Bishop and L.Primeau, Assessment of Group
Dynamics, Psychological and Physiological Parameters During Polar Winter-Over (paper
presented as part of the Human Systems Conference, Nassau Bay, TX, 2022 June 2001);
L.Palinkas, The Psychology of Isolated and Confined Environments: Understanding Human
Behavior in Antarctica, American Psychologist 58, no. 5 (2003): 353; R.H. Gilluly, Tektite:
Unique Observations of Men Under Stress, Science News 94 (1970): 400; J.L. Sexner, An
Experience in Submarine Psychiatry, American Journal of Psychiatry 1 (1968): 25; G.M. Sandal,
I.M. Endresen, R.Vaernes, and H.Ursin, Personality and Coping Strategies During Submarine
Missions, Military Psychology 11 (1999): 381; S. L. Bishop, P. A. Santy, and D.Faulk, Team
Dynamics Analysis of the Huautla Cave Diving Expedition: A Case Study, Human Performance
and Extreme Environments 1, no. 3 (September 1998): 34; G. M. Sandal, R.Vaernes, P.T. Bergan,
M.Warncke, and H.Ursin, Psychological Reactions During Polar Expeditions and Isolation
in Hyperbaric Chambers, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 67, no. 3 (1996): 227;
S. L. Bishop, L. C. Grobler, and O.Schjll, Relationship of Psychological and Physiological
Parameters During an Arctic Ski Expedition, Acta Astronautica 49 (2001): 261; N.Kanas,
Psychosocial Factors Affecting Simulated and Actual Space Missions, Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine 56 (1985):806.
15. The Boeing Company, Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Aircraft Accidents:
Worldwide Operations, 19591993, in Boeing Airplane Safety Engineering Report B-210B
(Seattle, WA: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, 1994); M. W. Raymond and R.Moser,
Aviators at Risk, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 66, no. 1 (1995): 35; D.S.
Ricketson, W. R. Brown, and K. N. Graham, 3W Approach to the Investigation, Analysis,
and Prevention of Human-Error Aircraft Accidents, Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine 51 (1980): 1036; B. L. Weiner, B. O. Kanki, and R. L. Helmreich, Cockpit Resource
Management (New York: Academic Press, 1993); D.A. Wiegmann and S.A. Shappel,
Human Factors Analysis of Postaccident Data: Applying Theoretical Taxonomies of Human
56
rooms indicate that 70 to 80 percent of medical mishaps are due to team and interpersonal interactions among the operating room team.16 From pilot to surgeon, firefighter, polar expeditioner or astronaut, we need to know if the characteristics that
define adaptable and functional individuals and teams have commonalities across
various environments. It is therefore critical that teamwork in these environments
be examined and understood. A fundamental need to enable these investigations
is developing reliable, minimally intrusive and valid methodologies for assessing
individual and group responses to these stressors and identifying dysfunctional and
functional coping responses. The use of extreme environments with characteristics
relevant to those inherent in space travel and habitation will play a crucial role in
preparing humans for egress from planet Earth.
Given the disparate nature of these various environments, Peter Suedfeld has
proposed five key principles that may be useful guides in assessing the relevance of
various extreme environments as viable analogs for space or providing the basis for
cross-comparisons:
Principle 1: Researchers should think in terms of experiences within environments rather than of environmental characteristics;
Principle 2: Researchers should study differences and similarities between
experiences, which are not the same as those between environments;
Principle 3: Analogies should be based on similarities of experience, not necessarily of environment;
Principle 4: Research should look at systematic links between personality factors and experience; and
Principle 5: Experience is continuous and integrated.17
Error, International Journal of Aviation Psychology 7 (1997): 67; D.W. Yacovone, Mishap
Trends and Cause Factors in Naval Aviation: A Review of Naval Safety Center Data, 1986
1990, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 64 (1993): 392.
16. B. Sexton, S. Marsch, R. Helmreich, D. Betzendoerfer, T. Kocher, and D.Scheidegger,
Jumpseating in the Operating Room, Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments
1, no. 2 (1996): 36; J. A. Williamson, R. K. Webb, A. Sellen, W. B. Runciman, and J.H. van
der Walt, Human Failure: An Analysis of 2000 Incident Report, Anesthesia Intensive Care 21
(1993): 678.
17. P. Suedfeld, Groups in Isolation and Confinement: Environments and Experiences,
in From Antarctica to Outer Space: Life in Isolation and Confinement, ed. A.A. Harrison, Y.A.
Clearwater, and C. P. McKay (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1991), p. 135.
57
C R I T I C A L P S Y C H O S O C I A L I S S U E S F O R S PA C E
The research on teams has, to date, focused on and identified needs for further
research under four broad categories. The intent here is not to recite the spectrum
of findings across analogs within these areas, but to articulate how analog environments can address these areas.
Selection issues deal with the evaluation of existing ability, trainability, and adaptability of prospective team members. It is not merely a matter of selecting-out
pathological tendencies, but, as importantly, selecting-in desirable characteristics. How can analog environments allow us to investigate the impact of various individual and group characteristics upon individual and group performance?
The impact of isolation and confinement has been shown to be significantly
impacted by various moderator variables, e.g., the difficulty of rescue. While
an emergency on the International Space Station certainly poses difficulties
regarding time to rescue, one can argue that the difficulties inherent in a Mars
mission or even here on Earth from the Antarctic in midwinter, where weather
conditions may absolutely make rescue impossible for long periods, carry a qualitatively different psychological impact. An emergency on a mission to Mars
will preclude any chance of rescue and necessitate a high degree of autonomy
for the crew in making decisions without any real-time mission support. The
degree to which such factors magnify the negative effects of isolation and confinement is critical to assess.
Group interaction and group processes are not a simple sum of the individuals that
make up the group. Complex interactions can reinforce, undermine, or create
new behaviors in the individuals involved. Identification of group fusion (factors that encourage group cohesion) and fission (factors that contribute to group
conflict) variables are elementary to creating habitats and work schedules, composing groups, and a myriad of other factors that will enable groups to function
effectively and ensure individual and group well-being. For instance, in a study
of Antarctic winter-over personnel, Palinkas found that personnel at Palmer (a
small station) spent 60 percent of their waking hours alone and retreated to
their bedrooms extensively for privacy. These behaviors could be considered fission factors as they promote withdrawal, social isolation, and distancing from
ones teammates. On the other hand, if the use of privacy served to control the
amount of contact and decreased tensions and group conflict, they would be
58
considered fusion factors. He also found that intermittent communication was a

major source of conflict and misunderstanding between crews and external support personnel, a clear source of fission influence. Examples of fusion factors for
this group were effective leadership styles, which played a significant role in station and crew functioning, as well as the ability to move furniture and decorate
both common and private areas, which facilitated adaptation and adjustment.18
Individual and crew performance is perhaps the clearest, most frequently studied
outcome. Yet there are challenges in defining what constitutes acceptable outcomes at both the individual and group levels. They are not always the same
thing, as investigations into missions that failed to meet expectations have
repeatedly confirmed. It is a mistake to try to assess and maximize performance
without understanding group dynamics, the effects of isolation and confinement
or the environment in general on inhabitants. Given that our selection criteria have been little more than ruling out pathology and matching task requirements with technical proficiency within individuals, it is of little surprise that our
efforts to implement performance improvements have been only modestly successful and fraught with inconsistent results. It is necessary to take the next steps
to identify which individual and group characteristics are maximally associated
with adaptation and functioning in these high-challengeenvironments.
T E R R E S T R I A L A N A L O G S F O R S PA C E
There are surprising similarities and differences found across environments.

G.M. Sandal et al. found that coping strategies during confinement on polar expeditions were different from those in hyperbaric chambers.19 Whereas polar teams
evidenced a delay interval with a marked drop in aggression until after the first
quarter, with concomitant increase in homesickness, chamber teams displayed a
steady gradual increase in coping over time. A number of researchers have noted
that it is not the site that seems to matter, but rather it is the differences in the mis-
18. Palinkas, Psychosocial Effects of Adjustment in Antarctica: Lessons for Long-Duration

Spaceflight: 471.
19. Sandal, Vaernes, Bergan, Warncke, and Ursin, Psychological Reactions During Polar
Expeditions and Isolation in Hyperbaric Chambers: 227.
59
sion profiles, e.g., tasks (daily achievement of a distance goal versus stationkeeping)
or duration (short versus long).
In fact, studies addressing Suedfelds Principle 4 investigating personality characteristics have produced supporting evidence for a focus on the experience as the
defining factor rather than the environment per se. The most persistently investigated
personality assessment for the last 15 years has been the NEO-PI by P.T. Costa and
R.R. McCrae.20 This instrument assesses five global dimensions of personality: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.
These dimensions have been found to be associated with the previous personality
right stuff/wrong stuff/no stuff profiles identified by Helmreich et al. in longitudinal studies of American astronaut candidate performance.21 Additionally, measures of
achievement motivation, interpersonal orientation, Type A, stress, and coping have
been frequently evaluated. Recent studies have found evidence that agreeableness
and conscientiousness seem to better predict performance at the global level, along
with specific facets of extraversion.22 Conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness have been found to be related more strongly to constructive change-oriented
communication and cooperative behavior than to task performance. Cognitive ability
appears to be related more strongly to task performance than to constructive changeoriented communication or cooperative behavior. Results also demonstrate contrasting relationships for agreeableness (positive with cooperative behavior and negative
with constructive change-oriented communication).23 However, another personal20. P. T. Costa, Jr., and R. R. McCrae, NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Lutz, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc., 1978, 1985, 1989, 1991).
21. T. J. McFadden, R. Helmreich, R. M. Rose, and L. F. Fogg, Predicting Astronaut
Effectiveness: A Multivariate Approach, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 65
(1994): 904.
22. P. Suedfeld and G. D. Steel, The Environmental Psychology of Capsule Habitats, Annual
Review of Psychology 51 (2000): 227; R. M. Rose, R. L. Helmreich, L. F. Fogg, and T.McFadden,
Psychological Predictors of Astronaut Effectiveness, Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine 64 (1994): 910; R. R. McCrae and J. Allik, The Five-Factor Model of Personality Across
Cultures (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, 2002).
23. M. R. Barrick, G. L. Stewart, M. J. Neubert, and M. K. Mount, Relating Member
Ability and Personality to Work-Team Processes and Team Effectiveness, Journal of Applied
Psychology 83 (1998): 377; L. Ferguson, D. James, F. OHehir, and A. Sanders, Pilot Study
of the Roles of Personality, References, and Personal Statements in Relation to Performance
over the Five Years of a Medical Degree, British Medical Journal 326, no. 7386 (22 February
2003): 429; J.A. LePine, Team Adaptation and Postchange Performance: Effects of
60
ity cluster has been identified in studies of successful polar trekking groups that is distinctly different from the right stuff profile in which factors indicative of individuals
who are loners seem to be supportive of adaptation, i.e., happier alone than dependent on others, highly autonomous, independent, uncomfortable about and relatively
uninterested in accommodating others in a group, task-oriented and somewhat competitive.24 Since we do not have enough data to reliably draw inferences about these
individuals, it is mere speculation at this time that perhaps the intense task focus of
a polar trek, in which each individual is highly autonomous and individually selfreliant during the long travel each day, situated in an environment that precludes
group interaction except for fundamental coordination of locomotion across the terrain, selects for individuals that are distinctly different from those who would occupy
a habitat or confined environment for long durations. In other words, only individuals with this inward, self-focused personality would find such challenges rewarding
and be successful at these tasks. Similarly, an apparently adaptive personality profile
has emerged from winter-overers that is characterized by low levels of neuroticism,
desire for affection, boredom, and need for order, as well as a high tolerance for lack
of achievement, which would fit well in an environment where isolation and confinement prevented accomplishments and the participants experienced frequent shortages and problems.25 Those that would best adapt would be those who could more
quickly adjust their expectations to the immediate situation and tolerate such obstacles. If this hypothesis is substantiated, then we must carefully match the characteristics of the individual to the environment as well as the group in order to maximize
successful adaptation and performance.
Psychological research to date seems to support two general findings: 1)there
do seem to be consistencies in the personality profile of functional and dysfunctional
teams, and 2)characteristics of the mission may define very different personality
Team Composition in Terms of Members Cognitive Ability and Personality, Journal of

Applied Psychology 88, no. 1 (February 2003): 27; T. A. Judge and R. Ilies, Relationship
of Personality to Performance Motivation: A Meta-Analytic Review, Journal of Applied
Psychology 87, no. 4 (August 2002): 797.
24. E. Rosnet, C. Le Scanff, and M. Sagal, How Self-Image and Personality Affect
Performance in an Isolated Environment, Environmental Behavior 32 (2000): 18.
25. L. Palinkas, E. K. E. Gunderson, and A. W. Holland, Predictors of Behavior and
Performance in Extreme Environments: The Antarctic Space Analogue Program, Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine 71 (2000): 619.
61
profiles as best fit. Insomuch as it is possible to select for hardier and better-fit personalities by filtering individuals and teams through environmental challenges,
selecting analogs with highly salient and relevant characteristics that match space
mission profiles (e.g., long versus short duration, stationkeeping versus expedition
profiles) will be important.
The Expeditionary Analog
Expeditions, by definition, revolve around movement. Expeditionary analogs (e.g., oceanic, polar, desert, caving, mountaineering) include various exploratory goals that are characterized by moving from one place to another rather than
inhibiting a locale. Historical exploratory expeditions typically involved long durations (i.e., months to years) characterized by significant known and unknown risks,
broad goals, a high degree of situationally driven contingency decision-making, and
expectations of autonomy and self-sufficiency. Modern expeditions, in contrast, are
typically of short duration (i.e., two weeks to three months), utilize the advantages
of technology to minimize risks (e.g., weather forecasts to take advantage of the
best weather of a region and satellite communications to maintain contact), are
more narrowly goal-oriented and task-focused, and involve members with specialized roles and skills. In both expeditionary scenarios, teams were/are formed around
appropriate skill sets and availability and a notable lack of any attempt to screen
individuals psychologically except for medical factors. Research on team functioning is often secondary to expedition goals, personal goals, schedules, and contingencies. The expedition may be intended to recreate experiences of earlier explorers,
such as the Polynesian Kon-Tiki oceanic traverse; set records or discover new territory, e.g., discover a route to India or explore a cave system; achieve personal challenges, such as climbing mountains or skiing to the North Pole; conduct scientific
research, e.g., by means of oceangoing research vessels or polar ice drilling teams; or
conduct commercial exploration, such as mineral and oil exploration.26
26. Bishop, Santy, and Faulk, Team Dynamics Analysis of the Huautla Cave Diving Expedition;
Bishop, Grobler, and Schjll, Relationship of Psychological and Physiological Parameters During
an Arctic Ski Expedition: 261; T. Heyerdahl, Kon-Tiki (Chicago: Rand McNally & Company,
1950); H. R. Bernard and P. Killworth, On the Social Structure of an Ocean Going Research
62
Ben Finney, Professor Emeritus in Anthropology at the University of Hawaii

and noted for his work on applying anthropological perspectives to humankinds
expansion into space, has argued that from the earliest voyages to have scientific
goals, cultural differences between scientists and seamen have led to conflict and
that this inherent conflict of cultures is similarly reflected in our space programs
structural differentiation between pilots and astronaut-scientists.27 Voyages of scientific discovery began in the late 18th century, an age, Finney points out, that many
have argued foreshadowed the space race of the 1960s.28 The first exploratory voyage to include scientists as crew and mission goals with explicit scientific objectives instead of commercial goals that serendipitously collected science data was
the three-year-long English expedition of the Endeavour to Tahiti, 176871, led by
Captain James Cook. The on-board scientists were tasked to observe the transit of
Venus across the face of the Sun to provide data needed to calculate the distance
between Earth and the Sun. The success of the Endeavours expedition led to a second expedition, which sailed with a number of scientists, two astronomers, and a
naturalist, an expedition that, in contrast to the first expedition, was rife with contentious relationships between the seamen and the scientists. Subsequent voyages
with scientists on board were similarly plagued by conflicts between those pursuing scientific goals and those tasked with the piloting and maintenance of the ship.
Historically, the English naval command eventually imposed an unofficial moratorium on the inclusion of non-naval scientists on board and pursued a policy of
assigning any scientific duties to members of the crew. Not until a hundred years
after Cook, in 1872, would the Royal Navys Challenger, a three-masted, squarerigged, wooden vessel with a steam engine, sail around the world with six marine
scientists and a crew and captain who were totally dedicated to the research.29
Vessel, Social Science Research 2 (1973): 145; H. R. Bernard and P.Killworth, Scientist at Sea:
A Case Study in Communications at Sea, Report BK-103-74, Code 452, Contract N00014-734-0417-0001, prepared for the Office of Naval Research (Springfield, VA: National Technical
Information Service, 1974); M.M. Mallis and C.W.DeRoshia, Circadian Rhythms, Sleep, and
Performance in Space, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76 (2005): B94.
27. B. Finney, Scientists and Seamen, in From Antarctica to Outer Space: Life in Isolation and
Confinement, ed. Harrison, Clearwater, and McKay, p. 89.
28. W. H. Goetzmann, New Lands, New Men (New York: Viking, 1986); J. Dunmore, French
Explorers of the Pacific, vol. 2 (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1969).
29. E. Linklater, The Voyage of the Challenger (London: John Murray, 1972).
63
Such troubles were not limited to the English. The French followed a similar pattern, beginning in 1766 and continuing through 1800, when scientists
sailed with numerous expeditions that were summarily characterized by conflict
and contention between the crews and scientists.30 Finney further notes that such
complaints are found in journals of early Russian scientists, as well as American scientists on the four-year-long United States Exploring Expedition that sailed from
Norfolk in 1838 with a contingent of 12 scientists.31
Modern development of specialized ships complete with laboratories and
equipment dedicated to oceanographic research has been primarily organized and
maintained by universities and oceanographic institutes. Yet even aboard these
dedicated floating research vessels, conflict between the ships crew and the scientists whom they serve has not been eliminated. A dissertation study conducted by a
resident at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography during 1973 concluded that tension between the two groups was inevitable because they formed two essentially
separate and distinct subcultures with different values and goals, as well as different
educational backgrounds and class memberships.32
Finney argues that the same subcultures have become evident in the space program with the development of the role of payload specialists, who are considered
visiting scientists rather than part of the elite astronaut corps. Tensions between
payload specialists in pursuit of the scientific goals and the crew in pursuit of mission completion have routinely been in evidence. Finney eloquently states:
[I]f space research were to be made as routine to the extent that
ocean research now is, subcultural differences, and hence tensions, between scientist and those pilots, stationkeepers, and others whose job it will be to enable researchers to carry out their tasks
in space may become critical considerations. If so, space analogues
of the mechanisms that have evolved to accommodate differences
30. J. Dunmore, French Explorers of the Pacific, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965).
31. A. von Chamisso, Reise um die Welt mit der Romanoffischen Entdeckungs Expedition in den
Jahren 18151818 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1856); W. Stanton, The Great United States Exploring
Expedition of 18381842 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1975).
32. Bernard and Killworth, On the Social Structure of an Ocean Going Research Vessel:
145; Bernard and Killworth, Scientist at Sea: A Case Study in Communications at Sea.
64
between scientists and seamen aboard oceanographic ships may

have to be developed.33
The number and variety of expeditions examined for relevance to space is
ever increasing as both modern expeditions and analyses of historical expeditions
are scrutinized. An example of how examination of the records from past expeditions contributes to the current state of knowledge and provides the impetus for
future studies in space can be seen in a metastudy by M.Dudley-Rowley et al. that
examines written records from a sample of space missions and polar expeditions
for similarities and differences in conflicts and perceptions of subjective duration
of the mission. Ten missions were compared across a number of dimensions.34 The
metastudy included three space missions that represented both long- and shortduration mission profiles: Apollo 11 (1969) and Apollo 13 (1970), ranging from
six to eight days apiece, and Salyut 7 (1982), which lasted over two hundred days.
Four Antarctic expeditions were included: the western party field trip of the Terra
Nova Expedition (1913, 48 days), an International Geophysical Year (IGY) traverse (195758, 88 days), the Frozen Sea expedition (198284, 480 days), and
the International Trans-Antarctic expedition (1990, 224 days). Finally, three
early Arctic expeditions were also included: the Lady Franklin Bay (188184,
1,080days), Wrangel Island (192123, 720 days), and Dominion Explorers (1929,
72 days). Seven factors emerged that seemed to coincide with the subjectivization
of time and the differentiation of situational reality for the crews from baseline:
1. increasing distance from rescue in case of emergency (lessening chances of
returnability);
2. increasing proximity to unknown or little-understood phenomena (which
could include increasing distance from Earth);
3. increasing reliance on a limited, contained environment (where a breach of
environmental seals means death or where a fire inside could rapidly replace
atmosphere with toxins);
33. Finney, Scientists and Seamen, p. 100.

34. M. Dudley-Rowley, S. Whitney, S. Bishop, B. Caldwell, and P. D. Nolan, Crew
Size, Composition and Time: Implications for Habitat and Workplace Design in Extreme
Environments (paper presented at the SAE 30th International Conference on Environmental
Systems, 1013 July 2000).
65
4. increasing difficulties in communicating with Ground or Base;

5. increasing reliance on a group of companions who come to compose a microsociety as time, confinement, and distance leave the larger society behind, in
a situation where innovative norms may emerge in response to the new sociophysical environment;
6. increasing autonomy from Grounds or Bases technological aid or advice; and
7. diminishing available resources needed for life and the enjoyment of life.
The missions and expeditions were ranked by prevalence of the seven factors
that might correspond with the differentiation in the subjectivization of the passage of time and in the situational reality for the crews from baseline. From highest to lowest in compromising factors, the rankings fell in the following order: Lady
Franklin Bay (7); Wrangel Island, Apollo 13 (6); Salyut 7 (5); Terra Nova, Apollo
11 (4); Dominion Explorers (3); Frozen Sea (2); IGY (1); International TransAntarctic Expedition (0). The Lady Franklin Bay Expedition suffered 18 deaths of
its complement of 25, and the rest were starving when found. The Wrangel Island
expedition suffered four deaths out of its crew of five. Apollo 13 was a catastrophe
that was remarkable in its recovery of the crew intact. The Salyut 7 mission, the
Terra Nova western field party, and the Apollo 11 mission all had high degrees of
risk. The later polar expeditions rank below these missions.
Both the space missions and the earliest polar expeditions are above or hover
just below the median (3.5). Although the authors correctly note that the sample is too small to draw conclusions, the presence of similar factors in space and
early polar exploration that contributed to perceptions of mission/expedition duration or of how their situational reality deviates from baseline is important to note.
These results suggest that as control over their environment decreases, team members subjective experiences of time and the situation increasingly differ from their
baselines. The strong parallel between early expeditions and modern space missions
lends support for historical analogs as viable substitutes for space.
Chamber Studies
Early evaluations for astronaut selection drew upon a history of sensory deprivation research initially begun by the military throughout the 1950s and 1960s to
address performance concerns about two-person crews confined to armored vehicles
66
for long durations and continued most notably through the series of studies conducted by J.P. Zubek.35 Initially, it was believed that space would represent a significant loss of normal sensory stimulation due to isolation from people, reduction
in physical stimulation, and restricted mobility. Thus, sensory deprivation chambers were argued to be good analogs for astronauts.36 Selection procedures, therefore, included stints in dark, small, enclosed spaces for several hours to observe how
potential astronauts handled the confinement and loss of perceptual cues. As Dr.
Bernard Harris, the first African American to walk in space, recounts, They put
me in this little box where I couldnt move or see or hear anything. As I recall, I
fell asleep after a while until the test ended.37
The first systematic attempts to investigate psychological adaptation factors to
isolation and confinement in simulated operational environments were conducted
in the 1960s and early 1970s by putting volunteers in closed rooms for several days,
subjecting them to sleep deprivation and/or various levels of task demands by having them complete repetitive research tasks to evaluate various aspects of performance decrements.38 Chamber research, as it was to become known, encompassed
a variety of artificial, constructed environments whose raison dtre was control
over all factors not specifically under study. Later, specially constructed confinement laboratories such as the facility at the Johns Hopkins University School of
Medicine or simulators at Marshall Space Fight Center in Huntsville, Alabama;
the McDonnell Douglas Corporation in Huntington Beach, California; or Ames
Research Center at Moffett Field, California, housed small groups of three to six
individuals in programmed environments for weeks to months of continuous residence to address a variety of space-science-related human biobehavioral issues
related to group dynamics (e.g., cohesion, motivation, effects of joining and leav-
35. J. P. Zubek, Sensory Deprivation: Fifteen Years of Research (New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts, 1969); R. Honingfeld, Group Behavior in Confinement: Review and Annotated
Bibliography, Report AD0640161, prepared for the Human Engineering Lab (MD: Aberdeen
Proving Ground, October 1965), p. 117.
36. B. E. Flaherty, ed., Psychophysiological Aspects of Space Flight (New York: Columbia
37. B. Harris, personal communication, thesis committee member (199596).
38. Haythorn and Altman, Personality Factors in Isolated Environments; Altman, An
Ecological Approach to the Functioning of Isolated and Confined Groups, p. 241.
67
ing established groups), performance and work productivity, communication patterns, team cooperation, and social habitability factors.
The epitome example of chamber research may be the series of four hyperbaricchamber studies, sponsored by the European Space Agency and designed to investigate psychosocial functioning, in which groups were confined for periods lasting from
28 to 240 days.39 Full mission protocols specifying all medical, technical, and operational parameters approximating expected living conditions of astronauts on a space
station were used. The studies were intended to evaluate the efficacy of various psychosocial monitoring and assessment techniques for implementation on real space
missions, as well as to investigate persistent occurrences of communication and interaction breakdowns between on-orbit teams and Mission Control anecdotally reported
from space.40 A number of opportunities and advances came from these studies, e.g.,
evaluating the efficacy of communication training for space teams or the opportunity
to examine factors involved in an unplanned meltdown between crews precipitated
by differences in cultural attitudes and norms about genders, authority, and control.41
However, skepticism regarding the verisimilitude of studies in which discontented
members can simply quit has continued to raise real concerns as to how generalizable
the findings from chamber studies are to spacemissions.
The Middle Ground: Capsule Habitats in Extreme Unusual Environments
Occupying the middle ground between traditional expeditionary missions with

moving trajectories and the artificiality of laboratory spaces designated as space
39. G. M. Sandal, R. Vaernes, and H. Ursin, Interpersonal Relations During Simulated

Space Missions, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 66 (1995): 617; G. M. Sandal,
Culture and Crew Tension During an International Space Station Simulation: Results From
SFINCSS99, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 75 (2004): 44.
40. Kanas, Salnitskiy, Grund, et al., Social and Cultural Issues During Shuttle/Mir Space
Missions: 647; Sandal, Vaernes, and Ursin, Interpersonal Relations During Simulated Space
Missions: 617; Gushin, Kolintchenko, Efimov, and Davies, Psychological Evaluation and
Support During EXEMSI: 283.
41. Sandal, Culture and Crew Tension During an International Space Station Simulation:
44; D. Manzey, ed., Space Psychology: Textbook for Basic Psychological Training of Astronauts
(Cologne, Germany: AM-BMT-DLR-98-009, ESA/EAC, 1998).
68
station habitats are capsule habitats, sharing the controlled, defined enclosure of the
laboratory situated within an extreme unusual environment (EUE).42 Characterized
by a controlled, highly technological habitat that provides protection and life support from an environment that is harsh, dangerous, and life-threatening, capsule
habitats occupy a wide range of environments. Some are true operational bases with
missions in which biobehavioral research is only secondary. Others run the gamut
from fundamental tuna can habitats with spartan support capabilities situated in
locations of varying access to a full-fidelity Antarctic base constructed solely for the
purposes of biobehavioral space analog research.
Submersible Habitats
Due to their high military relevance, the best-studied of capsule habitats are submarines. As an analog for space, submarines share a number of common characteristics:
pressurization concerns (hyperpressurization for submarines and loss of pressurization for
space), catastrophic outcomes for loss of power (e.g., the inability to return to the surface for submarines and degraded orbits for space), dependence on atmosphere revitalization and decontamination, radiation effects, and severe space restrictions. Prenuclear
submarine environments were limited in the duration of submersions (72 hours), crew
size (9 officers and 64 enlisted men), and deployment periods without restocking of fuel
and supplies. Structurally, these short-duration mission parameters mimicked those of
the early years of space, albeit with vastly larger crews. With the launch of the nuclearpowered Nautilus in 1954, the verisimilitude of the submersible environment as an
analog for long-duration space missions was vastly improved. With the nuclear submarine, mission durations were extended to 60 to 90 days, crews were increased to 16 officers and 148 enlisted men, and resupply could be delayed for months.43 Generalizing
from submarine research to space regarding psychological and human factors related to
adjustment and well-being, researchers have identified several salient issues:
42. Suedfeld and Steel, The Environmental Psychology of Capsule Habitats: 227.
43. B. B. Weybrew, Three Decades of Nuclear Submarine Research: Implications for Space
and Antarctic Research, in From Antarctica to Outer Space: Life in Isolation and Confinement,
ed. Harrison, Clearwater, and McKay, p. 103.
69
atmospheric revitalization and contamination control;

development and validation of procedures for the medical and psychological
screening of recruits;
identification of techniques for initiating and sustaining individual motivation
and group morale; and
identification of stressors, assessment of the severity of patterns of stress reactivity, and development of effective stress coping strategies.44
An extension of the submersible operational environment of a military submarine is the NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations program (NEEMO)
being conducted in the Aquarius underwater habitat situated off Key Largo,
Floridathe only undersea research laboratory in the world. Owned by the U.S.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and operated by the
National Undersea Research Center (NURC) of the University of North Carolina
at Wilmington on behalf of NOAA, Aquarius is the submerged analog to NOAA
oceanic research vessels. First deployed in 1988 in the U.S. Virgin Islands and
relocated to Key Largo in 1992, the underwater facility has hosted more than 80
missions and 13 crews of astronauts and space researchers since 2001. Aquarius
provides a capsule habitat uniquely situated within an environment that replicates
many of the closed-loop constraints of the vacuum of space, a hostile, alien environment that requires total dependency on life support; poses significant restrictions to escape or access to immediate help; and is defined by limited, confined
habitable space and physical isolation. The complexity of NEEMO missions further
parallels space missions in their mission architecture, with similar requirements for
extensive planning, training, control, and monitoring via an external mission control entity. However, it has only been the most recent NEEMO missions in which
stress, fatigue, and cognitive fitness, as well as individual and intrapersonal mood
and interaction, have been the focus of study.
44. B. B. Weybrew, R. L. Helmreich, and N. Howard, Psychobiological and Psychosocial

Issues in Space Station Planning and Design: Inferences from Analogous Environments and
Conditions (unpublished report prepared for NASA, 1986).
70
Polar Stations
First and foremost, Antarctica springs to mind when polar space analogs are
raised. While there are other polar bases in the Arctic and subarctic, the bulk of sustained psychological research has been conducted in Antarctica.45 G.M. Sandal et al.
conducted a recent, extensive review of the literature on psychosocial adaptation by
polar work groups, expedition teams, Antarctic bases, simulation, and space crews.46
There are 47 stations throughout the Antarctic and sub-Antarctic regions, operated
by 20 different nations, with populations running from 14 to 1,100 men and women
in the summer to 10 to 250 during the winter months. The base populations vary from
mixed-gendered crews to male-only crews, from intact families (Chile) to unattached
singletons, for assignments that last from a few months to threeyears.
In 1958, after the IGY (195657) produced the first permanent bases in
Antarctica, C.S. Mullin, H.Connery, and F.Wouters conducted the first systematic psychological study of 85 men wintering over in Antarctica.47 Their study was
the first of many to identify the Antarctic fugue state later dubbed the big-eye,
characterized by pronounced absentmindedness, wandering of attention, and deterioration in situational awareness that surfaced after only a few months in isolation. The majority of subsequent studies up through the 1980s focused on the
physiological changes evidenced in winter-over adaptation. Those that did address
psychosocial factors tended to focus on the negative or pathological problems of
psychological adjustment to Antarctic isolation and confinement, with persistent findings of depression, hostility, sleep disturbance, and impaired cognition,
which quickly came to be classified as the winter-over syndrome.48 Sprinkled
45. Harrison, Clearwater, and McKay, From Antarctica to Outer Space: Life in Isolation and
Confinement.
46. G. M. Sandal, G. R. Leon, and L. Palinkas, Human Challenges in Polar and Space
Environments, Review Environmental Science and Biotechnology 5, nos. 23 (2006), doi:10.1007/
s11157-006-9000-8.
47. C. S. Mullin, H. Connery, and F. Wouters, A Psychological-Psychiatric Study of an IGY
Station in Antarctica (report prepared for the U.S. Navy, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery,
Neuropsychiatric Division, 1958).
48. E. K. E. Gunderson, Individual Behavior in Confined or Isolated Groups, in Man
in Isolation and Confinement, ed. Rasmussen, p. 145; Gunderson, Psychological Studies in
Antarctica, p. 115; R. Strange and W. Klein, Emotional and Social Adjustment of Recent U.S.
Winter-Over Parties in Isolated Antarctic Station, in Polar Human Biology: The Proceedings of the
71
among Antarctic research have been findings that also report positive, or salutogenic, aspects of the winter-over experience in which winter-overers have reported
enhanced self-growth, positive impacts to careers, and opportunities for reflection
and self-improvement.49
One of Antarcticas most prolific researchers, Dr. Larry Palinkas has analyzed
1,100 Americans who wintered over between 1963 and 2003 over four decades of
research in Antarctica and proposed four distinct characteristics to psychosocial
adaptation to isolation, confinement, and the extreme environment:
1. Adaptation follows a seasonal or cyclical pattern that seems to be associated
with the altered diurnal cycle and psychological segmentation of the mission.
2. Adaptation is highly situational. Because of unique features of the stations
social and physical environment and the lack of resources typically used to
cope, baseline psychological measures are not as good predictors of depressed
mood and performance evaluations as are concurrent psychological measures.
3. Adaptation is social. The structure of the group directly impacts individual
well-being. Crews with clique structures report significantly more depression,
anxiety, anger, fatigue, and confusion than crews with core-periphery structures.
4. Adaptation can also be salutogenic, i.e., having a positive effect for individuals seeking challenging experiences in extreme environments.50
Palinkas found that a depressed mood was inversely associated with the severity
of station physical environmentsthat is, the better the environment, the worse
the depressionand that the winter-over experience was associated with reduced
SCAR/IUPS/IUBS Symposium on Human Biology and Medicine in the Antarctic, ed. O.G. Edholm
and E.K.E. Gunderson (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publications, 1974), p. 410.
49. Mullin, Some Psychological Aspects of Isolated Antarctic Living: 323; A.J.W. Taylor
and J. T. Shurley, Some Antarctic Troglodytes, International Review of Applied Psychology 20
(1971): 143148; O. Wilson, Human Adaptation to Life in Antarctica, in Biogeography and
Ecology in Antarctica, ed. J. Van Meigheim, P. van Oue, and J. Schell, Monographiae Biologicae,
vol. 15 (The Hague: W. Junk, 1965), p. 690; L. A. Palinkas, Health and Performance of
Antarctic Winter-Over Personnel: A Follow-Up Study, Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine 57 (1986): 954959; D. Oliver, Psychological Effects of Isolation and Confinement
of a Winter-Over Group at McMurdo Station, Antarctica, in From Antarctica to Outer Space:
Life in Isolation and Confinement, ed. Harrison, Clearwater, and McKay, p. 217; P. Suedfeld,
Invulnerability, Coping, Salutogenesis, Integration: Four Phases of Space Psychology,
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76 (2005): B61.
50. Palinkas, On the ICE.
72
subsequent rates of hospital admissions.51 He and others have speculated that the
experience of adapting to the isolation and confinement, in general, improved an
individuals self-efficacy and self-reliance and engendered coping skills that they
used in other areas of life to buffer subsequent stress and resultant illnesses.52
Concordia
In 1992, France initiated plans for a new Antarctic station on the Antarctic
Plateau and was later joined by Italy. In 1996, the first French-Italian team established a summer camp at Dome C to provide logistical support for the European
Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) and begin the construction of the
permanent research station. Concordia Station became operational in 2005; the
first winter-over took place in February 2005 with a staff of 13. The station consists
of three buildings, which are interlinked by enclosed walkways. Two large, cylindrical three-story buildings provide the stations main living and working quarters,
while the third building houses technical equipment, like the electrical power plant
and boiler room. The station can accommodate 16 people during the winter and
32 people during the summer season. The typical winter population consists of four
technicians for the station maintenance, nine scientists or technicians for the science projects, a chief, a cook, and a medical doctor.
Dome C is one of the coldest places on Earth, with temperatures hardly rising
above 25C in summer and falling below 80C in winter. Situated on top of the
Antarctic plateau, the worlds largest desert, it is extraordinarily dry and supports no
animals or plants. The first summer campaign lasted 96 days, from 5November 2005
until 8 February 2006, with 95 persons participating. The 2006 season included seven
crewmembers with two medical experiments and the first two psychological experiments sponsored by the European Space Agency for which the crew acted as subjects during their stay. The two experiments investigated psychological adaptation to
the environment and the process of developing group identity, issues that will also be
important factors for humans traveling to Mars. For this research, the crew completed
51. Ibid.
52. Ibid.; Suedfeld, Invulnerability, Coping, Salutogenesis, Integration: B61.
73
questionnaires at regular intervals throughout their stay. The ESAs Mistacoba experiment to profile how microbes spread and evolve in the stationan isolated and confined environmentover time started in the 2005 season, when the first crew started
living at the station, and has also continued with subsequent crews. Starting from a
newly built clean environment, those conducting the study took samples from fixed
locations in the base as well as from crewmembers themselves.53
Haughton-Mars Project
One of the first of dedicated research hybrid facilities was the Haughton-Mars
Project (HMP), initiated in 1996 when the National Research Council of the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences and NASA Ames Research Center sponsored a postdoctoral proposal to study the Haughton Crater on Devon Island in the Canadian
Arctic as a potential analog for Mars. The program has expanded from a four-member
team in 1997 to a permanent habitat that hosts eight-week arctic summer field seasons
with 50 to 90 participants, multiple teams, and research projects that run from instrument testing and development to biomedical and psychological evaluation. HMP
routinely supports participation by NASA; the Canadian Space Agency (CSA); the
Russian Institute for Space Research (IKI); various research institutions and universities in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom; and the U.S. Marine
Corps. It has been the subject of various documentaries made by such groups as the
National Geographic Society and Discovery Channel Canada.54
Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station
In 2000, a second dedicated research facility was deployed on Devon Island,

jointly sponsored by the Haughton-Mars Project and the Mars Society: the Flashline
53. European Space Agency, The Concordia Station, http://www.concordiastation.org/

(accessed 25 May 2010); ESA Research News, http://www.esa.int/esaHS/SEMBZA8A9HE_
research_0.html#subhead1 (accessed 18 June 2007).
54. The Mars Institute, NASA Haughton-Mars Project History, available at http://www.
marsonearth.org/about/history.html (accessed 14 June 2007).
74
Mars Arctic Research Station (FMARS). Running concurrently with HMP, the
FMARS facility was the first of four proposed analog research facilities to be built
by the Mars Society, supporting smaller six-person crews for typically two- to eightweek seasons. In summer 2007, the first four-month-long FMARS mission was successfully completed with a crew of seven and a full complement of research studies
covering technology, human factors, medicine, psychology, and communications.
Mars Desert Research Station
The second Mars Society station, the Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS),
came online in December 2001 and is situated in the Utah desert in the American
Southwest. Because of its ease of access, the American station is considered well
suited as a test bed for equipment that will later be sent to more remote and unforgiving locations. For the same reason, the American station has been the focus of
short-duration isolation and confinement studies since its inception. A wide range
of psychological studies investigating crew factors in short-duration missions has
been in place since 2002. However, beyond preliminary descriptive results presented at conferences, the small sample size of crews has necessitated waiting until
enough teams have rotated through the facility to allow meta-analyses.55 Several
international teams have also used the MDRS for studies investigating comparisons
between homogeneous-gendered teams, comparisons between mission teams and
backup crews, and international cultural factors, among others.56
55. S. L. Bishop, S. Dawson, N. Rawat, K. Reynolds, and R. Eggins, Expedition One:

Assessing Group Dynamics in a Desert Mars Simulation (paper presented as part of the
55th International Astronautics Conference, Vancouver, BC, 47 October 2004); S.L.
Bishop, S. Dawson, N. Rawat, K. Reynolds, R. Eggins, and K. Bunzelek, Assessing Teams in
Mars Simulation Habitats: Lessons Learned from 20022004, in Mars Analog Research, ed.
J.D.Clarke, American Astronautical Society Science and Technology Series, vol. 111 (San
Diego: Univelt, 2006), p. 177.
56. S. L. Bishop, A. Sundaresan, A. Pacros, R. Patricio, and R. Annes, A Comparison of
Homogeneous Male and Female Teams in a Mars Simulation (paper presented as part of the
56th International Astronautical Congress, Fukuoka, Japan, October 2005); S.L. Bishop,
Assessing Group Dynamics in a Mars Simulation: AustroMars Crew 48 (paper presented as
part of the Mars2030: Interdisciplinary Workshop on Mars Analogue Research and AustroMars
Science Workshop, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria, 2426 September 2006).
75
The Mars Society plans additional facilities in Iceland and Australia that will
capitalize on geological features that present opportunities to practice Mars exobiology field work. The Mars Societys Mars Analog Research Station Project envisions three prime goals to be served by these habitats:57
The stations will serve as effective test beds for field operations studies in preparation for human missions to Mars. They will facilitate the development and
testing of key habitat design features, field exploration strategies, tools, technologies, and crew selection protocols that will enable and help optimize the
productive exploration of Mars by humans. In order to achieve this goal, each
station must be a realistic and adaptable habitat.
The stations will serve as useful field research facilities at selected Mars analog
sites on Earth and will help further understanding of the geology, biology, and
environmental conditions on Earth and on Mars. In order to achieve this objective, each station must provide safe shelter and be an effective fieldlaboratory.
The stations will generate public support for sending humans to Mars. They
will inform and inspire audiences around the world. As the Mars Societys flagship program, the Mars Analog Research project will serve as the foundation
of a series of bold steps that will pave the way to the eventual human exploration of Mars.
CONCLUSION
The use of analogs for space is an emergent field whose very short track record
examining team dynamics and psychosocial factors impacting individual and group
functioning vigorously supports the real value of these environments and generalizability to space environments. Unlike laboratory studies, where the threat of real
danger is usually absent, teams operating within real extreme environments have
unknown situational and environmental challenges to face. Even in circumstances
in which death or injury occurs, there will always be questions regarding the ability
to avoid negative outcomes. While postmission analyses of behavior and performance
57. The Mars Society, Mars Desert Research Station Project Goals, available at http://www.
marssociety.org/MDRS/mdrs01b.asp (accessed 14 June 2007).
76
add insight into contributing factors, it is seriously doubtful whether we will ever be
able to accurately predict the entire range and complexity of interaction between
the human-environment factors and the human-human factors. Risk is inherent in
human exploration. Even so, the value of analog experiences cannot be underestimated, regardless of whether they help us grapple with defining our levels of adequate
preparation in the face of ideally predefined levels of acceptable risk or even acceptable losses (a concept familiar to those who perform military riskassessments).
One key methodological and validity issue is the added value of utilizing consistent measures across various analogs, allowing more accurate comparisons of individuals and teams across environments, including space. The necessity to validate
multicultural questionnaires and methodologies that are relevant, reliable, and valid
for international teams is of paramount importance as our reliance on these multinational teams will only increase in the future. To that extent, the various research
endeavors in analog environments have contributed significantly to validating such
assessment instruments in a variety of teams.
Findings from analogs have clearly identified three major intervention points
to affect group functioning outcomes:
Selection: the development of reliable and valid methods of choosing the best
fit at both the individual and the group levels.
Training: improving the fitness of the group by prepping skills needed for
interpersonal group dynamics as well as high-functioning self-monitoring and
appropriateadaptation.
Support: taking the form of prevention first, then early, proactive intervention
second. To be successful, research to date strongly suggests that the support
must include the group, the family, and all external participants (e.g., Mission
Control) as partners.
A large portion of the current research represents opportunities to examine team
dynamics and factors that impact team function in real-world groups that have been
brought together for particular purposes that have little to do with research, e.g., geological field teams. Similarly, examinations of historical sources of past expeditions will
continue to inform and provide additional insight into factors that have contributed
to the success or failure of previous efforts. However, we need larger, more systematic
studies in which the composition of the team is one of the driving factors under investigation instead of simply an extraneous variable. Our greatest hope lies with the new
research facilities now available and coming online dedicated to such research.
77
Chapter 4
Patterns in Crew-Initiated Photography of Earth from

the ISSIs Earth Observation a Salutogenic Experience?
Julie A. Robinson
Office of the ISS Program Scientist
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC)
Kelley J. Slack
Behavioral Health and Performance Research
Wyle Laboratories
Valerie A. Olson
Department of Anthropology
Rice University
Michael H. Trenchard
Image Science and Analysis Laboratory
Engineering and Science Contract Group (ESCG)
NASA JSC
Kimberly J. Willis
Image Science and Analysis Laboratory
ESCG
NASA JSC
Pamela J. Baskin
Behavioral Health and Performance Research
Wyle Laboratories
Jennifer E. Boyd
Department of Psychiatry,
University of California, San Francisco; and
San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center
79
ABSTRACT
To provide for crewmember well-being on future exploration missions, understanding coping strategies that International Space Station (ISS) crewmembers
adopt to mitigate the inherent stress of long-duration confinement is important.
A recent retrospective survey of flown astronauts found that the most commonly
reported psychologically enriching aspects of spaceflight had to do with their perceptions of Earth. ISS crewmembers photograph Earth both volitionally and in
response to requests from Crew Earth Observations (CEO) scientists. Automatically
recorded data from the camera can be used to test hypotheses about factors correlated with self-initiated crewmember photography. The present study used these
objective in-flight data to investigate the nature of voluntary photographic activity.
We examined the distribution of photographs with respect to time, crew, and subject matter. We determined whether the frequency fluctuated in conjunction with
major mission events such as vehicle dockings and extravehicular activities (EVAs,
or spacewalks), relative to the norm for the relevant crew. We also examined the
influence of geographic and temporal patterns on frequency of Earth photography
activities. We tested the hypotheses that there would be peak photography intensity over locations of personal interest, as well as on weekends.
Of nearly 200,000 photographs taken on eight ISS expeditions, 84.5 percent
were crew-initiated. Once a crewmember went to the window for a CEO request,
he or she was more likely to take photographs for his or her own interest. Fewer
self-initiated images were taken during and immediately preceding major station
events. Crewmembers were more likely to take self-initiated images during periods when they had more free time. Analysis indicated some phasing in patterns of
photography during the course of a mission, although it did not suggest that psychological functioning was lower during the third quarter of confinement (i.e., no
third-quarter effect was found). Earth photography is a self-initiated positive activity of possible importance for salutogenesis (increase in well-being) of astronauts
on long-duration missions. Scientific requests for photography through CEO play
an important role in facilitating crew-initiated photography. Consideration should
be given to developing substitute activities for crewmembers in future exploration
missions where there will not be the opportunity to look at Earth, such as on longduration transits to Mars.
80
Patterns in Crew-Initiated Photography of Earth from the ISS

Is Earth Observation a Salutogenic Experience?
BACKGROUND
Earth Observation Throughout Human Spaceflight
John Glenn, the first U.S. astronaut in orbit, talked NASA into letting him
carry a camera on Friendship 7 on 20 February 1962.1 On reaching orbit, Glenn told
capsule communicator Alan Shepard over the radio, Oh, that view is tremendous. Glenn proceeded to describe each of the three sunrises and sunsets he saw
during the flight, and he continues to recount that experience in interviews today.2
A number of the astronauts who have followed have verbally recounted emotional experiences related to seeing and photographing Earth, and several astronauts have documented in written form their responses to views of Earth linked
to their photography activities while in space. Space Shuttle astronaut Kathryn D.
Sullivan wrote in an article documented with her Earth photography, Its hard to
explain how amazing and magical this experience is. First of all, theres the astounding beauty and diversity of the planet itself, scrolling across your view at what
appears to be a smooth, stately pace . . . Im happy to report that no amount of prior
study or training can fully prepare anybody for the awe and wonder this inspires.3
Observations of familiar places on Earth can also have strong emotional connections. NASA-Mir astronaut Jerry Linenger recorded photographing his hometown
in Michigan in his crew notebook, Great ViewMichigan + Great Lakes cloudfreeready to go home, now!4
From Apollo to the current ISS, scientists have assisted astronauts with crewinitiated and science-specific photography of Earth. All the imagery is archived in
a searchable online database maintained by the descendant of the previous pro-
1. Jay Apt, Justin Wilkinson, and Michael Helfert, Orbit: NASA Astronauts Photograph the
Earth (Washington, DC: National Geographic Society), pp. 1113.
2. Bryan Ethier, John Glenn: First American to Orbit the Earth, American History, October
1997, available at http://www.historynet.com/magazines/american_history/3030096.html (accessed
7 June 2010).
3. Kathryn D. Sullivan, An Astronauts View of Earth, Update (newsletter of the National
Geographic Societys Geography Education Program) (fall 1991): 1, 1214, available at http://
eol.jsc.nasa.gov/newsletter/uft/uft1.htm (accessed 7 June 2010).
4. Kamlesh P. Lulla, Lev V. Dessinov, Cynthia A. Evans, Patricia W. Dickerson, and Julie A.
Robinson, Dynamic Earth Environments: Remote Sensing Observations from ShuttleMir Missions
(New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000).
81
grams on the International Space Station, CEO, which provided statistics summarized here. Over 2,500 photographs of Earth were taken by Mercury and Gemini
astronauts. Apollo astronauts photographed both Earth and Moon views, with over
11,000 photographs taken, and have been credited with initiating the interest in
Earth observations from space.5 Handheld photography of Earth by astronauts on
Skylab accompanied the extensive imagery obtained by an automated multispectral
camera system.6 Over the three Skylab missions, crewmembers took around 2,400
images of Earth, and the automated camera systems an additional 38,000 photographs with specialized films.
Building from this experience and the growing interest in Earth observations from space, a program called the Space Shuttle Earth Observations Project
(SSEOP) was established in 1982 to support the acquisition and scientific use of
Earth photography from Space Shuttle flights. Located at the center of astronaut
training, Johnson Space Center, SSEOP scientists were assigned to each Shuttle
crew. Astronauts were trained in geology, geography, meteorology, oceanography,
and environmental change for a total of approximately 12 instructional hours prior
to flight. Also before flight, about 20 to 30 sites were chosen for the crew to photograph while on orbit. The mission-specific sites were chosen from a list of previously
identified environmentally dynamic terrestrial areas visible from the Space Shuttle.
Each crew was given a preflight manual consisting of their unique sites that included
photographs and scientific information. The decision on when to take photographs
was at the astronauts discretion. A list of targets was sent to the Shuttle crew on a
daily basis during the flight. The main camera used for Earth observation was the
70-millimeter Hasselblad with the 50-, 100-, 110-, and 250-millimeter lenses commonly used, and both color and infrared film was made available per crew preference.7 After each flight, the Earth-viewing film was cataloged and entered into a
database. Paper catalogs were also mailed to a subscriber list of interested scientists
5. Paul D. Lowman, Jr., Landsat and Apollo: The Forgotten Legacy, Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing 65 (1999): 11431147.
6. NASA, Skylab Earth Resources Data Catalog, JSC-09016 (Houston, TX: Johnson Space
Center, 1974); V. R. Wilmarth, J. L. Kaltenbach, and W. B. Lenoir, eds., Skylab Explores the
Earth (Washington, DC: NASA SP-380, 1977), pp. 135.
7. Julie A. Robinson, David L. Amsbury, Donn A. Liddle, and Cynthia A. Evans,
Astronaut-Acquired Orbital Photographs as Digital Data for Remote Sensing: Spatial
Resolution, International Journal of Remote Sensing 23 (2002): 44034438.
82

and educational and government users. To date, Shuttle crewmembers have captured over 287,000 images of Earth.
From March 1996 through June 1998, the scientists of SSEOP supported
Earth photography by crewmembers spending longer durations in space as part
of the NASA-Mir program. U.S. investigators collaborated with the Institute of
Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, in developing Earth observation objectives for astronauts on board Mir.8 The documentation of dynamic environmental
changes on Earths surface was a primary objective for both SSEOP and the Russian
Institute of Geography. Another objective was to develop scientific approaches and
procedures that could later be applied to the same kinds of dynamic observations
from the ISS. With the advent of Shuttle-Mir and the ISS, the focus of SSEOP
changed from short-term observation to long-term observation.
The cameras used on Shuttle-Mir were the same as on the Shuttle, with the
70-millimeter Hasselblad (film) as the main camera, but the Nikon F3 35-millimeter
camera was also available. A joint list of sites was chosen by U.S. and Russian scientists for Shuttle-Mir. Earth observation target sites were sent to the Shuttle-Mir
crews weekly. Training was modified from the typical Shuttle briefings to enable the
Shuttle-Mir crews to document unanticipated dynamic events as well as targets of
opportunity that would be encountered more often on long-term missions. Another
benefit of long-term Earth observing missions was the ability to document seasonal
change and long-term climatic effects. Approximately 22,500 photographs were
taken during the seven Shuttle-Mir missions.
Crew Earth Observations began as a formal ISS research activity (payload)
on the first mission, Expedition 1, in October 2000. Training for ISS crews evolved
from experiences gained in the Shuttle and Shuttle-Mir programs. Rather than
discipline-specific training, ISS crews were trained on science topics such as coral
reefs, global urban systems, deltas, and glaciers. The emphasis was more on observing Earth as a system than on documenting independent events. An overall science
plan tied together the target sites and crew training and is still used and updated
by increment for ISS crews today. Due to the extensive training ISS astronauts
receive regarding all aspects of their missions, CEO training is limited to 4 hours.
Typically this training occurs during the early part of the training cycle. Since an
8.
Lulla, Dessinov, Evans, Dickerson, and Robinson, Dynamic Earth Environments.
83
ISS mission is longer than a Shuttle mission, the number of targets per increment
varies from approximately 140 to 160 sites, and they are updated with the change
of each ISS increment.
The digital camera, a Kodak 460 DSC, was introduced on STS-73; however,
the Hasselblad film camera remained the favorite of the Shuttle crews, most likely
because of their experience with that camera. Improvements in digital technology
coincided with the change in focus of the Shuttle program to the assembly of the
International Space Station. Following the Space Shuttle Columbia accident in
2003, NASAs support of Earth observations by crewmembers has been focused on
the ISS. Although SSEOP was dissolved, individual Shuttle crewmembers on missions to the ISS could still use the on-board cameras to take images of Earth, but
without scientific support.
Earth Observation in Human Spaceflight Today
The digital camera was favored by ISS crews over the film cameras because it
allowed them to review their imagery while on orbit. The immediate review of their
imagery enabled the crews to view and improve their photographic techniques.
Digital images could also be down-linked to the CEO scientists for review, and the
scientists in turn could provide feedback to the crew. The issue of film versus digital
cameras was settled in 2003 when mission length was extended to about six months.
The extension of crew time on orbit made film more susceptible to radiation fogging. While digital cameras are not immune to radiation, they are better able to
cope with longer exposures to the space environment, and eliminating the need to
return film to Earth was also an important improvement.
With the use of the 400-millimeter lens and 2 extender available for the digital camera, ISS crews have been able to document dynamic events at a higher
resolution than was possible from the Shuttle with the 250-millimeter lens.9 The
400- and 800- millimeter lens options are clearly the favorites of ISS crews. An
additional benefit of the camera is the automatic logging of the time as well as
9. Julie A. Robinson and Cynthia A. Evans, Space Station Allows Remote Sensing of Earth
to Within Six Meters, Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 83 (2002): 185, 188.
84

the date the image was acquired, along with other camera settings. Currently, the
Kodak 760 DSC is used for CEO; however, this camera was upgraded with the
higher resolution Nikon D2x in the latter part of 2008.
In addition to watching Earth, ISS crewmembers photograph Earth through
the windows of the ISS and are able to share those images with the world. The
CEO activity provides a venue to transmit requests for photographs of areas of scientific or public interest to the astronauts each day and to distribute the acquired
photographs to scientists and the public. Crewmembers take photographs of the
targets during their free or unscheduled time; Earth photography is never a scheduled crew activity. A list of candidate targets is sent to them on a daily basis, and
crewmembers can make attempts to photograph those targets, choose to take no
images, or, on their own initiative, photograph Earth at any time. These self-initiated
images would seem to be of special importance to crewmembers since the taking of
these images is purely volitional. Whether requested by scientists or self-initiated,
images of Earth taken from the ISS are identified and distributed via the Gateway
to Astronaut Photography of Earth Web site.10
Earth Observation and Behavioral Health in Human Spaceflight
While NASA has always engaged in space exploration research, The Vision for
Space Exploration and subsequent definitions of specific exploration mission architectures have required a much more focused use of the ISS.11 In particular, the ISS is
to be used for research on human health on long-duration space missions, as well as
for technology development and testing.12 Behavioral health and performance has
been identified as a discipline with additional research needs requiring the ISS.13
10. NASA, Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth Web site, http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov.

11. NASA, The Vision for Space Exploration (Washington, DC: NASA NP-2004-01-334-HQ,
2004), pp. 1517.
12. NASA, The NASA Research and Utilization Plan for the International Space Station
(ISS), A Report to the Committee on Science of the United States House of Representatives
and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the United States Senate,
NASA Headquarters (Washington, DC: NASA Headquarters, 2006), pp. 120.
13. NASA, Bioastronautics Roadmap: A Risk Reduction Strategy for Human Space Exploration
(Houston, TX: NASA Johnson Space Center SP-2004-6113, 2005), p. 5; John R. Ball and
85
Maximizing psychological well-being and performance of the crew, while in a confined space with interpersonal interactions limited to a small number of people, is
important for the success of ongoing ISS missions. Knowledge about behavioral
health gained from ISS missions is also important for the success of future missions
to a lunar base and provides key data for a four- to six-month Mars transit. A particular concern is maintaining crew psychological well-being for the duration of a
round-trip mission to Mars that could last as long as three years.14
Positive (or salutogenic) experiences while in space may promote psychological well-being by enhancing personal growth and may be important for offsetting
the challenges of living and working in a confined and isolated environment.15 In
a survey of flown astronauts aimed at identifying the positive or salutogenic effects
of spaceflight, Eva Ihle and colleagues identified positive changes in perceptions of
Earth as the most important change experienced by astronauts.16
If viewing Earth is an important component of positive experiences in spaceflight, then having Earth out of view may be an important challenge for crews
going to Mars because it could increase the sense of isolation.17 To the extent that
observing Earth is a positive experience for ISS crewmembers, replacement activities or new psychological countermeasures may be needed to ensure the well-being
of crewmembers on a Mars mission.
Charles H. Evans, Jr., eds., Safe Passage: Astronaut Care for Exploration Missions (Washington,
DC: Committee on Creating a Vision for Space Medicine During Travel Beyond Earth Orbit,
Board on Health Sciences Policy, National Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press,
2001), pp. 136171.
14. NASA, Bioastronautics Roadmap, p. 12.
15. Peter Suedfeld, Applying Positive Psychology in the Study of Extreme Environments,
Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments 6 (2001): 2125; Peter Suedfeld
and Tara Weiszbeck, The Impact of Outer Space on Inner Space, Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine 75, no. 7, supplement (2004): C6C9.
16. Eva C. Ihle, Jennifer Boyd Ritsher, and Nick Kanas, Positive Psychological Outcomes
of Spaceflight: An Empirical Study, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 77 (2006):
93101.
17. Nick Kanas and Dietrich Manzey, Space Psychology and Psychiatry (Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003), p. 186.
86

Objectives
In this paper, we mine the dataset of Earth observation photography to see

whether additional information could be gleaned about the importance to crewmembers of the positive experience of viewing Earth. Our first objective was to
quantify the extent to which photography of Earth was self-initiated. A second
objective was to identify patterns in photography, or conditions under which crewmembers were more likely to take self-initiated images. From this we hoped to gain
quantitative (although correlative) insight into whether Earth observation activities are important to long-duration crewmembers on the ISS and use this to infer
whether Earth observation activities might play a role in maintaining the psychological well-being of at least some of these crewmembers.
Hypotheses
Prior to analyzing the photographic incidence data, we generated the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Fewer self-initiated images are expected to be taken during
periods of, and preparation for, extraordinary activities. Daily activities on the
Station can be very crudely dichotomized into regular daily activities and extraordinary activities. Extraordinary activities include EVAs as well as docking and
undocking (i.e., of Space Shuttle, Soyuz, and Progress spacecraft). Further, these
extraordinary activities require substantial focus and preparation leading up to the
event. These extraordinary activities generally consume more time than regular
daily activities, leaving less time for volitional activities such as taking images. In
the mission timelines, extensive EVA and docking preparation ramps up prior to
an event, with restrictions on the ability to schedule other, noncritical activities
beginning one week prior to the EVA, so we considered one week prior as our preparation period.
Hypothesis 2: More self-initiated images are expected to be taken during
weekends or other light-duty times. Typically, crewmembers have fewer set tasks
to accomplish on weekends, so they have increased periods of time in which they
can choose their activities. Given the volitional nature of self-initiated images
coupled with the enjoyment crews have stated that they receive from viewing
87
Earth, we expected crewmembers to take more Earth photographs during periods

of decreased workload.
Hypothesis 3: More self-initiated images are expected to be taken of geographic areas of personal interest to crewmembers. Past crews have placed great
importance on viewing Earth,18 and most Shuttle and ISS crewmembers have
requested support in photographing their hometowns and other places of personal
interest. If such interest provides an indirect linkage of crewmembers in space to the
people and place they have left behind, the photographing of places that hold special meaning for crewmembers, such as their childhood home or their alma mater,
might be expected to be of particular relevance.
Hypothesis 4a: Phasing occurs such that differing numbers of self-initiated
images will be taken over the course of a mission. Hypothesis 4b: During the
third quarter of the mission, increased numbers of self-initiated images will be
taken. Previous research, both in space and in analog environments such as the
Antarctic, has found mixed results regarding the existence of either phasing or a
third-quarter effect.19 The term phasing suggests that isolated individuals experience
a cycle of ups and downs in psychological well-being during their time in confinement. While the term phasing is more general, the term third-quarter effect specifically refers to a period of lowered psychological well-being during the third quarter
of an extended confinement. Thus, we looked for several possible temporal patterns
in the incidence of self-initiated photography.
18. Ihle et al., Positive Psychological Outcomes of Spaceflight: 93101.

19. Robert B. Bechtel and Amy Berning, The Third-Quarter Phenomenon: Do People
Experience Discomfort After Stress Has Passed? in From Antarctica to Outer Space: Life in
Isolation and Confinement, ed. Albert A. Harrison, Yvonne A. Clearwater, and Christopher
P. McKay (New York: Springer Verlag, 1991), pp. 261266; Mary M. Connors, AlbertA.
Harrison, and Faren R. Akins, Living Aloft: Human Requirements for Extended Spaceflight
(Washington, DC: NASA SP-483, 1985); Nick Kanas, Daniel S. Weiss, and CharlesR.
Marmar, Crew Member Interactions During a Mir Space Station Simulation, Aviation, Space,
and Environmental Medicine 67 (1996), 969975; Gro M. Sandal, Coping in Antarctica: Is It
Possible to Generalize Results Across Settings? Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 71,
no. 9, supplement (2000): A37A43; Jack W. Stuster, Claude Bachelard, and Peter Suedfeld,
The Relative Importance of Behavioral Issues During Long-Duration ICE Missions, Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine 71, no. 9, supplement (2000): A17A25.
88

METHODS
Participants
Images taken by up to 19 ISS crewmembers, beginning with ISS Expedition 4

(December 2001, when the full capability of the digital camera began to be used)
and continuing through Expedition 11 (October 2005), were included in this study.
Ten were astronauts with NASA, and nine were Russian cosmonauts. The expeditions consisted of three crewmembers through Expedition 6, when the number
of crewmembers on the Station dropped to two, one Russian and one American.
Gender of the crew for Expeditions 4 through 11 was predominantly male with only
one female astronaut. It is not known whether every individual on board the ISS
actually used the camera, nor which individuals took which images.
Data and Analyses
Digital photographs are taken on orbit and downlinked to the ground during
the course of the mission. These are separated by content (Earth, hardware, people). All Earth images become part of the Database of Astronaut Photography of
Earth, which was used for these analyses and is available online.20
We analyzed the Earth photography patterns using the digital data recorded on
the back of the digital cameras used on the ISS. The cameras automatically record
the date and time when the photograph was taken, as well as specific photographic
parameters. The data do not identify the individuals using the camera, as any crewmember may pick up any camera to take pictures, and individuals often stop briefly
at a window to take pictures throughout the day. Crews are cross-trained in the use
of the imagery equipment. Some crews share the responsibility of taking images of
Earth; in other crews, one member might have more interest and thus be the primary photographer. Regardless, crewmembers report photographing areas known to
be of interest to fellow crewmembers.
20. NASA, Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth Web site, http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov

(accessed 9 December 2010).
89
Additional datasets compiled for use in analyses were 1) lists of areas of known
geographic interest to crews based on publicly released biographical information,
2) orbital track parameters to relate images taken to the log of scientific requests
sent to the crew, and 3) records of on-orbit activities to determine the incidence
of EVAs, the docking of visiting vehicles, and days of light duty/holidays. We used
the orbit tracks and message logs to identify which photographs were in response
to CEO requests and which were self-initiated by the crew. Occasionally, battery
changes and camera resets were conducted on orbit without resetting the date and
time on the camera. Because of this, not all camera time stamps were accurate. We
screened those data for inaccuracies (such as an incorrect year for a specific expedition), and these records were eliminated from the analyses.
For each day, we determined the number of images of Earth that were selfinitiated, were of areas of known geographic interest to any member of that
crew, were in response to a scientific request, and used the 800-millimeter (highmagnification) lens setup. The use of the 800-millimeter lens was tracked because
it represents a significant skill that requires much effort to achieve the best results,
and the resulting images provide the most detail (up to 6-meter spatial resolution). The crewmembers must practice tracking the motion of Earth beneath
the ISS using the camera equipped with the 800-millimeter lens and learn how
to focus properly through the lens.21 Although this was not one of our original
hypotheses, we realized that use of the 800-millimeter lens could be an indicator of crew interest in Earth photography as a challenging, self-motivated hobby.
In general terms, the analyses looked for relationships between self-initiated
image-taking and when the images were taken, as well as between self-initiated
image-taking and the geographic location of those images. For the benefit of statistically minded readers, hypotheses 1 and 2 were addressed by examining zero
order correlations and using general linear models in a statistical analysis package
(GLIMMIX [generalized linear mixed models] procedure in SAS). This procedure
fits generalized linear mixed models to the data and allows for normally distributed
(Gaussian) random effects.22 Hypothesis 3 was tested using a related procedure that
could incorporate categorical data into the model (GENMOD procedure for gen21. Robinson and Evans, Space Station Allows Remote Sensing of Earth to Within Six Meters: 185.
22. SAS, The GLIMMIX Procedure (Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., June 2006), p. 5, available
at http://support.sas.com/rnd/app/papers/glimmix.pdf (accessed 5 May 2006).
90

eralized linear models in SAS). Hypothesis 4a was tested using regression, while
general linear model repeated measures analysis was used for hypothesis 4b.
R E S U LT S
From December 2001 (Expedition 4) through October 2005 (Expedition 11),

crewmembers took 144,180 images that had accurate time and date data automatically recorded by the camera. Of time-stamped photographs, 84.5 percent were
crew-initiated and not in response to CEO requests.
Comparison of Variables
These comparisons were made by examining the degree to which the variables
are related (correlation), the average for each variable (mean), and the degree to
which the values for a variable differ from its average (standard deviation). See table
1 for all measures included in the study. For subsequent analyses, we considered only
self-initiated images and excluded images taken in response to CEO requests.
The correlations presented in table 1 provide a preliminary examination of the
data rather than a formal test of the hypotheses. When conducting statistical analyses, correlations typically are examined first, and then a priori hypotheses are tested
using more robust statistical approaches. Based on the correlations in table 1, the
following inferences can be made.
A crewmember with a camera in hand was more likely to take self-initiated
photos in addition to the requested images (self-initiated images were correlated
with requested imagesr=.36, p<.01). Also, 800 millimeters was the focal length
more frequently chosen when crewmembers took images of their own choice, even
though taking images at 800 millimeters was more challenging (self-initiated images
were correlated with images taken at an 800-millimeter focal lengthr=.41,
p<.01). Further, crewmembers also were more likely to take self-initiated images
of geographic areas of Earth that were of personal interest to them (r=.25, p<.01).
A crew containing a member, for example, whose childhood home was in a small
town in Illinois, would be more likely to take images of that area than of areas not
holding personal significance for any member of that crew.
91
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations across all missions.

Each parameter is measured on a daily basis across all expeditions combined.
Std.
Daily Number of:
Mean Dev. 1
2
3
4
5
6
1 Total images taken 102.3 119.1
Self-initiated images
86.4
107.5 .98**
2
taken
Images of
1.6
5.1
.25** .25**
3
geographic interest
Requested images
15.9
25.3 .54** .36** .10**
4
taken
Images taken with
17.8
34.4 .41** .41** .15** .19**
5
800-mm
Proportion of Days:
Higher availability
6
to take images
*
**
Std.
Mean Dev. 1
.3
.07** -.01
.4
.06*
-.03
.07**
Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
Crews were more likely to take self-initiated images on weekends (self-initiated

images correlated with weekendsr=.07, p<.01) However, contrary to expectations, neither activity nor holiday was related to self-initiated images (due to space
limitations, the variables of weekends, activities, and holidays are not included in
table 1). It could be that crewmembers did not necessarily have more time available on holidays or that self-initiated images are more tightly linked to scientistrequested approaches to the window. To address the possibility that holidays and
planned activities were not indicative of whether crewmembers had time available
to take self-initiated images, the variables of holiday, weekend, and activity were
combined to create a measure of general availability to take images. Using this new
measure of general availability, we found that crewmembers were more likely to
take self-initiated images when they had time available (general availability was
correlated with self-initiated imagesr=.07, p<.01).
92

Figure 1. Probability that self-initiated images were taken, using activity as a predictor across mission.
Tests of Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: Activity. Hypothesis 1 stated that fewer self-initiated images

would be taken one week prior to and during extraordinary mission events, such as
EVAs and dockings. The data analysis supported this hypothesis. Crewmembers were
less likely to take self-initiated images while preparing for and during these mission
events than during regular daily station activities. To state in statistical terms, conditional upon the degree of variability that could not be described by the model (the
random effect of the intercept) and controlling for time (days) on the ISS, the type of
activity on the Station predicted whether self-initiated images were taken (t=2.50,
p<.01). Further, crewmembers were more likely to take self-initiated images on days
of regular Station activities as the mission progressed. In other words, the longer crewmembers had been on orbit, the more likely they were to take self-initiated images
(the effect of activity also was different over timet=4.65, p<.01) (see figure 1).
93
Figure 2. Probability that self-initiated images were taken, using general availability as a
predictor across mission.
Extraordinary mission events, along with the period spent in orbit, influenced
whether or not images were taken each day but did not influence the number of
images taken on a given day. To use other words, although general activity predicted
whether or not any photographic activity occurred, it did not predict the number of
self-initiated images taken during regular or extraordinary mission events (t=.77,
not significant [ns]).
Hypothesis 2: Weekends. According to hypothesis 2, more self-initiated
images would be taken on weekends. This hypothesis was not supported (t=.65,
ns), perhaps because life on the Station does not always allow weekends off. This
finding, in apparent conflict with the preliminary finding that self-initiated images
taken were correlated with weekends, is due to hypothesis 2s being tested with
more robust statistical methods than those of correlation alone.
94

In response to this supposition, the composite variable of days available, or
general availability, was used to reflect workload on the ISS more accurately. This
composite took into account whether activity on the Station was extraordinary,
whether it was a weekend, and whether a particular day was considered an off or
partial-duty day or a regular-duty day. General availability was thus a more realistic
representation of days with crewmember free time.
This post hoc hypothesis was supported. Regarding the taking of images, more
self-initiated images were taken when crewmember schedules allowed (see figure
2). Crewmembers were less likely to take self-initiated images on a Saturday, for
example, if they were also preparing for an EVA. In more statistical terms, general
availability was associated with whether self-initiated images were taken (t=4.37,
p < .01), conditional upon the intercept and after controlling for time on the
Station. Additionally, later in the mission, crewmembers became even more likely
to take self-initiated images when their schedules allowed, indicating that general
availability predicted differentially as the mission progressed (t=2.26, p=.02).
Regarding the number of images taken, the longer crewmembers had available
time, the more images they took. In more statistical terms, general availability predicted the number of self-initiated images taken (t=2.10, p=.02) after controlling
for the intercept and time on the Station. Further, crewmembers took just as many
images when they had time available at the beginning of the mission as at the end
of the mission. In other words, general availability did not differentially predict over
the length of the mission (t=1.22, ns).
Hypothesis 3: Geographic interest. Hypothesis 3 stated that crewmembers
would take more self-initiated images of areas that were of personal interest to
them.23 This hypothesis was not supported by the data (2(df=1)=1.14, ns).
Crewmembers were no more likely to take self-initiated images of geographic areas
of personal interest to them than they were to take any other self-initiated images.
The fidelity of the measure of areas of personal interest is questionable, though. The
geographic areas of interest were determined by our survey methods rather than by
direct reports from crewmembers themselves.
23. Due to limitations in the GLIMMIX procedure, a model fitting geographic interest could
not converge. As an alternative, the GENMOD procedure was used. Given that GLIMMIX
uses the GENMOD procedure to fit generalized linear models when random effects are absent,
this change in statistical procedure is not significant.
95
Figure 3. Quarterly estimated marginal mean number of self-initiated images taken by mission.
Hypotheses 4a and 4b: Phasing/third-quarter effects. Hypothesis 4a stated

that phasing would occur such that self-initiated images would be taken differentially across the mission. This hypothesis was supported in that the number of
self-initiated images taken is not consistent across the duration of the mission.
Statistically, the quadratic term of the regression equation used to assess curvilinearity in the data was significant (R2=.02, p<.01). The temporal effects identified in the tests of hypothesis 1 and, to a lesser extent, hypothesis 2 lend further
support to hypothesis 4a. Conditional upon the type of activity, the longer the
crewmembers were on the Station, the more likely they were to take self-initiated
images. In more statistical terms, when using type of activity as a predictor, time
on the Station was a significant predictor of whether self-initiated images would
be taken (t=3.16, p<.01).
Hypothesis 4b stated that greater numbers of self-initiated images would be
taken during the third quarter of the mission. This hypothesis was not supported;
figure 3 effectively illustrates the lack of a third-quarter effect. The statistical
method used to test hypothesis 4b was general linear model repeated measures.
96

Figure 4. Example of a crew-initiated image of So Paulo, Brazil, at night. While staying on the
ISS, astronaut Don Pettit assembled a homemade tracking system to photograph long-exposure
images under low light conditions. (Image number ISS006-E-44689, 12 April 2003)
DISCUSSION
In this study, we made novel use of data available on the patterns of Earth photography by crews aboard the International Space Station. Although the data are
observational, they allow additional insights into the role that observing Earth
plays in the daily lives of crews in orbit. Perhaps the most important observation
is the importance that photography of Earth has for at least some crewmembers, as
evidenced by the degree to which it is self-initiated (84.5 percent of 144,180 photographs) and conducted as a leisure activity (for an example, see figure 4). As of
mid-2006, active photography of Earth has continued, with a total over 250,000
images taken through Expedition 13.
Earth photography also offers several venues for personal accomplishments for
ISS crewmembers. For example, the use of motion tracking with the 800-millimeter
lens combination to achieve high-quality, high-magnification images of Earth is a
challenge that some crewmembers have relished. Anecdotally, some crewmembers
97
Figure 5. Example of a crew-initiated image using the 800-millimeter lens combination. This
view shows a portion of an image of the Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, California, taken
by astronaut Jeff Williams from the ISS during Expedition 13. Expedition 13 held the record
for the largest number of Earth images taken during an expedition (74,266 Earth images taken)
until it was surpassed when Jeff Williams was again on the ISS (this time with Soichi Noguchi
and T. J. Creamer) during Expedition 22 (88,779 images), November 2009March 2010. (Image
number ISS013-E-65111, 6 August 2006)
98

Figure 6. View of Mount McKinley (Denali), Alaska, taken from the ISS using a powerful
800-millimeter lens to photograph this peak while the spacecraft was over the Gulf of Alaska,
800 miles to the south of the mountain. Cosmonaut Sergei Krikalev has assembled a collection
of these views of major world mountain peaks during his stays on the ISS during Expeditions 1
and 11. (Image number ISS011-E-11806, 14 August 2005)
do not try to use the combination; others make it a personal challenge, and several
crewmembers have become expert at its use, taking many thousands of such images
during their mission (for an example, see figure 5). We cannot distinguish whether
the most important element of this activity is taking and sharing these sometimes
astounding images of Earth, the challenge of learning/perfecting a new skill, or a
combination (for an example, see figure 6).
The correlation between scientific requests and self-initiated photography
might reflect the practicality of a crewmember who continues to photograph Earth
once he/she has a camera in hand. However, it is also suggestive of the importance of the scientific basis and public use of photographs in making the activity worthwhile for the crews. The scientific support from Crew Earth Observations
enables self-initiated photography of Earth by providing opportunities and reminders to go to the window with a camera. It is likely that the image identification and
Web distribution completed by CEO adds value to the self-initiated photography
99
by ensuring that it can be shared with the worldbut confirming this hypothesis
would required a more structured survey of crewmembers. The database structure of
CEO also adds personal value to crewmembers, making it easier for them to search
for images they have taken for their own use.
From our analyses for hypotheses 1 and 2, self-initiated images were less likely
to be taken when workload prevented itand since 84.5 percent of images taken
are self-initiated, Earth photography is clearly a leisure activity. However, crews are
more likely to take self-initiated images as the mission progressesperhaps due to
acclimation and familiarity with life and duties on the Station or a growing realization that their time in space, and thus their ability to photograph Earth from
space, is limited. This trend over the duration of the mission was the only mission
phasing observed. A more careful examination of figure 3 suggests that the phasing
effect might be due more to individual differences pertaining to specific missions or
perhaps to an increasing competency with the photographic equipment. It is not
clear to what extent this phasing effect might reflect differences in mission profiles
or characteristics of the particular crewmembers assigned to the particular missions.
Future Research and Applications
In spite of the importance of behavioral health and performance for the success of human spaceflight missions, relatively few studies have been done on the
ISS to date.24 This analysis of data collected for other purposes serves as an example of mining data collected as part of ISS operations to increase knowledge. Such
analyses can inform surveys for future data collection and influence future behavioral studies on the ISS. Given these observations, future studies should consider
crew motivations in photographing Earth. Psychological component testing could
reveal whether taking more self-initiated images is associated with increased crew
psychological well-being.
24. Cynthia A. Evans, Julie A. Robinson, Judy Tate-Brown, Tracy Thumm, Jessica CrespoRichey, David Baumann, and Jennifer Rhatigan, International Space Station Science Research
Accomplishments During the Assembly Years: An Analysis of Results from 20002008 (Houston, TX:
NASA Johnson Space Center, NASA/TP-2009-213146REVISION A, 2009), pp. 110159.
100

The importance of viewing Earth as reported in crew surveys, crewmember
anecdotes to CEO personnel (and the published quotations in the introduction),
and the patterns in photography of Earth reported in our analysis all point to a positive psychological role on the part of these activities. Conclusions from this type
of correlative data mining are only suggestive of the importance of Earth observation for crewmembers. Future studies of behavioral health should consider quantitative assessment of salutogenic effects of leisure activities such as Earth observations.
As we begin to plan for interplanetary missions, it is important to consider
what types of activities could be substituted. Perhaps the crewmembers best suited
to a Mars transit are those individuals who can get a boost to psychological wellbeing from scientific observations and astronomical imaging. Replacements for the
challenge of mastering 800-millimeter photography could also be identified. As
humans head beyond low-Earth orbit, crewmembers looking at Earth will only see
a pale-blue dot, and then, someday in the far future, they will be too far away to
view Earth at all.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Edna Fiedler and Frank Carpenter for their encouragement to pursue these analyses. Chuck Green advised us on the statistical analyses and helped with access to SAS procedures. We also thank Cindy Evans, Edna
Fiedler, and Nick Kanas for their reviews and suggestions for improvement.
101
Chapter 5
Managing Negative Interactions in Space Crews:

The Role of Simulator Research
Harvey Wichman
Aerospace Psychology Laboratory
Claremont McKenna College and Claremont Graduate University
ABSTRACT
This chapter argues that a watershed period has been reached in the history of
spaceflight that requires a paradigm shift in the way spacecraft are designed and
people are selected and trained for spaceflight. In the beginning, space programs
had minimal spacecraft, and flights were of short duration. Heroic human specimens were then recruited and extensively trained to perform in these machines
no matter how difficult or uncomfortable it was. Spacecraft technology is now sufficiently sophisticated to design spacecraft to be much more accommodating to
human occupants. The historical timing of this shift in thinking is heralded by the
coming together of sophisticated space technology, the rise of space tourism, and
the desire for spaceflights of greater duration than brief sorties into Earth orbit.
Simulator technology has developed in step with spacecraft technology. However,
simulators are used primarily in training. The chapter concludes with an illustration
of how simulators can be used as behavioral research laboratories. A study conducted
for the McDonnell Douglas Aerospace Corporation is presented; in it, a spaceflight
simulator was used to explore both applied and theoretical questions with a diverse
group of civilian passengers in a simulated 45-hour orbital spaceflight.
INTRODUCTION
In the 47 years since Yuri Gagarin became the first person in space and the
first person to orbit Earth, several hundred cosmonauts and astronauts have successfully flown in space. Clearly, there is no longer any doubt that people can live
103
and work successfully in space in Earth orbit. This ability has been demonstrated in
spacecraft as tiny as the Mercury capsules, in Space Shuttles, and in various (and
much more spacious) U.S. and Soviet/Russian space stations. Spending up to half a
year in space with a small group of others is no longer unusual. However, plans are
afoot to return to the Moon and establish a permanent settlement there and then
to proceed to Mars. Big challenges are on the horizon, and their likely success is
predicated on three historical series of events: first, the long series of successes in
Earth-orbital flights since the launch of Sputnik on 4 October 1957; second, the
six successful excursions of Apollo astronauts on the Moon; and third, the successful robotic landings to date on Mars.
In addition to the challenges that lie ahead for the big government-sponsored
Moon and Mars projects of the future, the challenging era of civilian space tourism is about to begin. Five persons, beginning with Dennis Tito in 2001, have
purchased flights to the International Space Station on board Russian Soyuz spaceships and have had short stays of about a week in space. On 4 October 2004, Burt
Rutan and his team at Scaled Composites, LLC, won the $10 million Ansari X
Prize by successfully flying a privately developed and funded suborbital rocket ship
capable of reaching space. The British company Virgin Galactic is now planning
to fly commercial passengers to the edge of space in a larger suborbital spaceship
being developed by the X Prizewinning Scaled Composites in Mojave, California.
These will be short rides in space, lasting only minutes, but it is clear that the era
of space tourism is at hand. Travel and touring form a powerful human motive, an
observation corroborated by the fact that tourism is the worlds largest industry.
Spaceflight involving humans used to be exclusively the domain of the massive governmental programs in the space race between the United States and the Soviet
Union. Now, however, other countries have smaller but significant space programs
with human spacefarers. Robert Bigelows private aerospace company in Las Vegas,
Nevada, now has flying in Earth orbit a pair of proof-of-concept scale models of a
proposed generic habitat that could become a space hotel or a private space factory or laboratory.
Both the Soviet/Russian and U.S. space programs have demonstrated that
humansmen and women of different national and ethnic groupscan live and
work together in Earth-orbiting habitats for modest periods that have quite precise beginning and ending times. But all of these successful experiences have taken
place in the quasi-military social structures of the astronaut and cosmonaut space
104
Managing Negative Interactions in Space Crews: The Role of Simulator Research
programs. In addition, both of these programs managed the expected problems of

human physical and social frailty by very stringent selection procedures and lengthy
training regimens. None of this is compatible with space tourism. Space tourists will
compose a much wider spectrum of spacefarers who will have to be accommodated
and whose training periods will have to be dramatically shorter. In addition, space
tourists will not be government employees and heroes of national renown. Rather,
they will be purchasing their flights to space and will expect services commensurate with the cost of the tour.
I am proposing that, as we approach the end of the first half century of spaceflight, the accelerating maturation of the space program has brought us to a historical threshold. To move successfully beyond that threshold will require a significant
shift in the way engineers, designers, and flight managers approach their tasks. The
time is past when getting to space was a dangerous experiment; technology was
in an early stage of development, and it was sufficient (and perhaps necessary) to
design minimal spacecraft that required highly selected and arduously trained test
pilots in top physical condition to tolerate them as environments.
At this point in the history of spaceflight, we face two big questions: 1) even
though the cosmonaut and astronaut social systems have adapted to the demands
placed on them so far, will they be able to cope with the much greater challenges
that lie ahead, and 2) is there any chance that space tourism, with a much more
fluid social structure and a vastly broader spectrum of participants than in the current space program, will work at all? This paper deals primarily with the second
question, but some of the things that make civilian spaceflight possible will apply
to facilitating astronaut and cosmonaut success with their new challenges of establishing a permanent Moon base and then going on to Mars.
Social scientists have been studying the behavior of humans in what have
come to be called extreme environments even before the space program began.
Extreme environments are those that are characterized by such features as isolation, risk, confinement, crowding, restricted privacy, and the inability to leave
at will. Illustrations of such environments are submarines, Arctic and Antarctic
research stations, undersea habitats, and high-altitude research stations. Once
there was interest in how people might perform in tiny, crowded spacecraft, these
studies of other extreme environments were looked at as analogs for spaceflight
since all of the environments had salient social stressors in common. It seemed
reasonable to assume that it did not much matter if one was deep in the ocean or
105
up in space if one was confined in a metal canister with other people. A good summary of this work can be found in A. A. Harrisons book, Spacefaring: The Human
Dimension.1 Suffice it to say here that these were good analogs for what spaceflight would turn out to be like. The design of the interiors of spacecraft and the
management of daily life on board benefited much from the information gleaned
from experiences with other extreme environments. These experiences contributed to the development of selection criteria and training regimens in the early
days of the space program. When reviewed by social scientists, these studies of
real-life situations generated hypotheses and theories that were then subjected to
rigorous tests in laboratories and added to the general fund of knowledge in social
psychology. An example might be Freedmans density intensity hypothesis.2 The
density intensity hypothesis stated that whatever emotion is extant when crowding occurs will be enhanced by the crowding. Crowding per se is not necessarily
aversive. This was a nonintuitive but valuable finding. This phenomenon can be
witnessed at most happy social gatherings. A group of people may have a whole
house at their disposal, but one would seldom find them uniformly distributed
about the premises. It is much more likely that they will be gathered together in
two or three locations, happily interacting in close proximity. The reverse of this
is also true, as can be seen in mob behavior, where the crowding amplifies the
anger of the members. The important point for spacecraft design was that happy
people in a cramped spacecraft would not have their good moods diminished by
the crowding.
Just as the study of behavior in other extreme environments turned out to be
valuable for designing spacecraft interiors and predicting behavioral patterns in eventual spaceflight, so too spaceflight simulators can be used to experiment with different aspects of spacecraft interiors such as color, lighting, noise, and temperature
in order to determine optimal designs before committing to a final configuration.
In fact, this method began with simple cardboard and wood mock-ups (primitive
types of simulators); then, beginning in the 1950s with the advent of simulators, it
became commonplace in the aerospace industry and at NASA. More importantly
however, spaceflight simulators can also be used to explore social behavior in extreme
1. Albert A. Harrison, Spacefaring, The Human Dimension (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 2001).
2.
106
J. L. Freedman, Crowding and Behavior (San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman, 1975).
environments. Experiments can be conducted with procedures designed to facilitate

the prosocial behavior of the occupants. In the early days of the space program, when
anecdotal studies of life in extreme environments such as submarines were all we had,
these studies proved valuable and served us well. But spaceflight simulators can be
used to create situations more specific to spaceflight and do so in a laboratory setting
in which extraneous variables can be much better controlled.
Of course, spaceflight simulators on Earth cannot simulate weightlessness. That
is unfortunate because the higher the fidelity of the simulator, the better the transfer to real-world situations. We have seen in aviation that extremely high-fidelity
flight simulators can be so effective for training that airline pilots transitioning to a
new airplane can take all of their training in a simulator and then go out and fly the
airplane successfully the first time. However, the inability to simulate weightlessness
by no means destroys the usefulness of spaceflight simulators as research tools for
the study of human behavior. NASA currently uses them effectively to train astronauts for life on the International Space Station. Not every variable involved in
an extreme environment has to be present in a simulation for an analog to be able
to generalize usefully from one setting to another. If that were the case, the early
studies from real-world extreme environments would have been useless to NASA.
But they were not.
Now, as we enter this new era of spaceflight, we need to use simulators to
improve our understanding of the variables involved in successfully coping with the
new challenges that will confront us. How such simulators can be used as research
tools as opposed to training devices is not intuitively obvious. Since there have
been few such studies involving civilian participants, the general public knows little of what goes on in such a study. Therefore, I will describe a study conducted in
my laboratory that will demonstrate how simulator studies can address both applied
and theoretical research questions. This study is particularly relevant to this paper
because it has given us important information about managing negative interpersonal interactions in a setting simulating those that would be found in future civilian spaceflight.
This study was conducted for McDonnell Douglas Aerospace in Huntington
Beach, California, in the spring of 1996. The final report was submitted to the company and not published in the academic press. Here is an overview of the study conducted in my laboratory that shows how we might change the course of spaceflight
design for the next phase in the history of life off planet Earth.
107
T H E A E R O S PA C E P S Y C H O L O G Y
L A B O R AT O RY S I M U L AT O R E X P E R I M E N T
I will begin by setting the stage for what took place. McDonnell Douglas Aerospace
(now Boeing Space Systems) in Huntington Beach, California, was in the process of
developing a new, single-stage-to-orbit rocket to replace the Space Shuttles. This vehicle would take off vertically the way the Shuttles do, but instead of gliding in for a landing, it would land vertically using the thrust of its engines the way the Moon landers did
in the Apollo program. The rocket, which was to be called the Delta Clipper, was first
conceived of as a cargo vehicle. Soon, engineers began thinking about having both a
cargo bay and, interchangeable with it, a passenger compartment. The passenger compartment was to accommodate six passengers and a crew of two for a two-day orbital
flight. Former astronaut Charles Pete Conrad was then a vice president of McDonnell
Douglas Aerospace and a key player in the development of the Delta Clipper. At the
time, all of the McDonnell Douglas designers were fully occupied with work under a
NASA contract on the design of what would eventually become the International
Space Station. Dr. William Gaubatz, who headed the Delta Clipper program, had hired
one of my graduate students as part of the team developing the vehicle. She gave Dr.
Gaubatz and Pete Conrad a copy of my book, Human Factors in the Design of Spacecraft.3
After reading the book and engaging me in several interviews, they selected my laboratory to design the passenger compartment for the Delta Clipper.
Pete Conrad had determined that a spaceship in orbit about Earth at the inclination then being commonly flown by the Shuttles would be able to see most of
the parts of Earth that the passengers would want to see in daylight if the spacecraft orbited for two consecutive days (remember that when orbiting Earth, one is
in darkness half the time).
Once the passenger compartment design was satisfactorily completed, there was
considerable excitement among the McDonnell Douglas engineers about the idea of
taking civilian passengers to space (no one spoke words such as space tourism yet
at that time). The designers were excited about such ideas as not putting full fuel on
board the vehicle for orbital flight but keeping it lighter, adding more passengers,
3. H. A. Wichman, Human Factors in the Design of Spacecraft (Stony Brook: State University
of New York [SUNY] Research Foundation, 1992).
108
Figure 1. A scale model of the spacecraft simulator used in the study conducted in the
Aerospace Psychology Laboratory at Claremont McKenna College.
remaining suborbital, and flying from Los Angeles to Tokyo in 40 minutes or Los
Angeles to Paris in 38 minutes. However, when the euphoria of the daydreaming was
over, the Delta Clipper team was left with the question, can you really take a group of
unselected, relatively untrained civilians; coop them up in a cramped spacecraft for
two days of orbital spaceflight; and expect them to have a good time?
A new academic year was about to begin, so the designers called a meeting and
asked my lab to address this question in a simulated spaceflight.
We accepted the challenge and built a spaceflight simulator in our laboratory
that had the same volume per person as the one designed for the Delta Clipper (see
figures 1 and 2).
109
Figure 2. A diagram of the interior of the spaceflight simulator pictured in figure 1.
The Delta Clipper team wanted to know whether people such as those we
would select could tolerate being enclosed in a simulator for 45 hours, whether
this experience could be an enjoyable space vacation adventure, and whether
anything could be done prior to a flight to ensure a high quality of interpersonal
interactions among the participants during the flight. Furthermore, they wanted
110
us to measure the quality of the interactions among the participants. Answering

these questions required that we conduct an experiment; we decided to conduct
two simulated flights with equivalent groups. The flights would have to be essentially identical except that one group (the experimental group) would get preflight training in effective group behavior techniques, and the other group (the
control group) would spend the same preflight time in a placebo treatment without group training.
The two groups would not know whether they were the experimental or control group. The groups would have to be observed during the simulation. They did
know that they would be observed by cameras and microphones placed so as to survey the entire interior except in the airlock and the toilet. (Participants changed
clothes and bathed in the airlock with moist towels that were warmed in a microwave oven.) The participants could also be observed through a one-way window
that appeared to be a mirror on their side. Participants soon were oblivious to being
observed, as was often demonstrated when an observer on the outside would be startled by a participant suddenly using the one-way window as the mirror it appeared
to be on the inside.
In an effort to recruit participants who would approximate the kinds of people who might book a spaceflight, we contacted a travel company that booked
adventure travel tours such as to Antarctica and got from them the demographics
of the people who book such tours. We then advertised in a local paper for volunteers to act as participants in a simulated space vacation. Those applying would
have to commit to participating for 48 hours, from 5 p.m. on a Friday evening until
5 p.m. on the following Sunday evening. Six passengers were selected for each of
the two groups: they ranged in age from 34 to 72, half of them were men and half
were women, and each group had one married couple. In addition, each group
had its own two-member crew, a white male and a black female. We knew of no
spaceflight simulation study that involved such diversity of age, gender, and ethnicity involving civilians resembling those who might one day be involved in space
travel. Participants wore their own light sport clothing and soft slippers or warm
socks because, as they were informed, in space, where people will be floating about
and might bump into others or delicate equipment, shoes would not be worn. The
crewmembers were mature college students who were recruited and trained ahead
of time. They wore uniforms similar to NASA-type coveralls. They were unaware
of the fact that there were two groups and of the variables being studied.
111
Observers were trained to a high degree of reliability to observe the groups at

all times. The analytical system used was the Bales Interaction Analysis technique.4
Using operationally defined criteria, the observers measured whether interpersonal
interactions, both verbal and nonverbal (e.g., postures, gestures, and expressions),
were positive, neutral, or negative.
During their duty shifts, the observers each monitored the behavior of two participants. An observer would monitor one participant for a 1-minute period, assign
a score, and then switch to the other participant for a 1-minute period and assign
that person a score. Then it was back to the first person for a minute and so on until
the end of the shift.
Our spaceship simulator had the same shortcoming that all earthbound simulators have: it could not simulate weightlessness. However, that does not seem to be a
critical factor. The astronaut and cosmonaut programs have a long history of using
such simulators and getting results in actual spaceflight that match the behaviors
observed in the simulators with a high degree of fidelity.
A simulator is, in a way, equivalent to a stage set. If it looks sufficiently like a
spaceship and has the sounds and smells of a spaceship, and if the things that take
place within it are those that take place in spaceflight, then the participants, so
to speak, buy into it and experience the event as a spaceflight. Our spaceflight
simulator seems to have worked very well in this respect. Loudspeakers produced
sounds mimicking those in Space Shuttles and were kept at amplitudes similar to
the Shuttle averages (72 decibels). For liftoff and touchdown, very loud engine
exhaust vibration and sound were produced by large, hidden speakers.
Because the participants in the simulator did not float about in weightlessness
as they would in orbit, we had to have bunks for them to sleep in. During the simulated liftoff and insertion into orbital flight, the participants remained strapped
in their bunks. The participants reported in postflight questionnaires that they felt
they really had a sense of what a spaceflight would be likethat they often forgot
that this was make believe and that they really were living the real experience,
to quote two of the participants. They reported being thrilled during the noisy liftoff and the powered landing.
4.
112
R. F. Bales, Personality and Interpersonal Behavior (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970).
The moment our experimental team knew for certain that we had been successful in creating a realistic spaceflight simulation occurred soon after the first group of
participants was established in orbit. The crewmembers were at their control stations and communicating with Mission Control. The passengers had unstrapped
from their bunks and were assembled in their seats facing forward toward the window area. Mission Control advised that they were preparing to remotely retract
the radiation shield over the window and that everyone would soon have a view of
Earth from space. By watching the changing postures of the participants, observers could easily see that tension was mounting during the 10-second countdown.
Suddenly, a view of Earth taken from one of the Shuttle flights filled the window
(actually a 27-inch television screen). One participant gasped and placed her hand
to her mouth while staring at the scene. Another whispered aloud in awe, Ohhhh
myyy god. Another, holding her hands to her cheeks said tearfully, Ohhh, isnt
that beautiful. One of the men, gripping the sides of his chair, simply whispered,
Wow! Another said, Jeez, look at that!
There is no doubt that the confinement, training, spacecraft routine, etc., were
tolerated. All of the hourly questionnaires, the interaction measurements, and the
postflight behavior of the participants clearly suggest to the most casual observer
that the flight was not only tolerated but thoroughly enjoyed by the participants. It
lived up to their preflight hopes, according to postflight questionnaire reports and
their comments to us. Exit from the simulator was delayed in both flights because
the participants took the unplanned-for time to trade telephone numbers and
addresses before leaving. People who came to the experiment as strangers left as
friends. Participants moods during the simulated flights remained positive, and the
number of negative interactions in both groups was small. In the year following the
study, my lab received so many telephone calls from participants in both groups
requesting a reunion that we felt compelled to go back to McDonnell Douglas and
request that they sponsor such an event. They did, and it was a very well-attended,
robust party.
One might then wonder if perhaps the social situation produced happiness but
the space aspect of it was not important. What we learned is that the participants
returned home and presented themselves in their respective social groups as having had a virtual trip to space of such realism that for all practical purposes, it might
as well have been real. They were now, in their respective social settings, authorities on space travel. For months after the experiment, the lab kept receiving calls
113
from participants requesting answers to all sorts of space questions. It seemed that
now that they were perceived by others as authorities on space, people called to ask
space-related questions of them. When they could not answer them, they turned to
us for the answers. What is important here is that this postsimulation experience
gave us the opportunity to see how this simulation had changed the participants
lives in a positive, space-related way.
During the first of the two simulations, we had programmed in an hour during
the early part of the orbiting for the participants to talk with Mission Control.
This was a question-and-answer period. We hoped they might find it instructive
and even entertaining. As it turned out, the early part of their flight had generated many questions that they were eager to have answered or have an opportunity to discuss. They so enjoyed that hour that they pleaded to have another such
hour added for later in the flight. Fortunately, this request was made on the first
flight, because the experimental design required that the program schedules be
the same in both flights. We did add the extra hour to both flights. In the postflight questionnaires, the participants of both flights indicated that the discussions with Mission Control while flying were the favorite parts of the trip. Very
clearly, the participants enjoyed the spaceflight aspects of the simulation very
much. All of the subsystems of the simulator worked as planned. No extraneous
variables intruded, such as outside noises. From the standpoint of the equipment,
the experiment was uneventful.
Just before entering the simulator, the experimental group received a 2-hourlong program designed to enhance interpersonal prosocial behavior. It was designed
much like the type of program corporations provide for their executives in order to
develop team building and enhance effective workplace interactions. The program
was divided into two main sections, one emphasizing effective interpersonal behavior and the other dealing with understanding and resolving conflicts. In essence, the
first part taught participants how to be sensitive to one another and get along, and
the second part taught them how to recover if a falling-out did occur. Each participant in the experimental group received a bound 14-page pamphlet of notes about
the course material. Much of the formal presentation was lecture/discussion in style,
but about one-fifth involved group activities as well.
Just before entering the spacecraft, the control group was given a presentation that lasted the same amount of time but had nothing to do with effective
group behavior.
114
Table 1. The total number of interpersonal interactions and their emotional nature
(positive, neutral, or negative) for participants in the experimental and control groups.
Type of
Experimental
Control
Percent
Communication
Group
Group
Difference
Positive
Communication
354
282
20
Negative
Communication
19
58
Neutral
Communication
2,120
2,370
11
Total
Communication
2,482
2,671
7.1
This pair of simulation studies provided much useful information. First of all,
as has already been indicated, the participants not only tolerated their confinement
very well, but really did enjoy it as a simulated space adventure. The observation
data showed that the emotional tone of most of the interpersonal interactions was
neutral and that there were relatively few negative interactions in either group, but
there were significantly more negative interactions in the control group than in
the experimental group that had received the preflight training in effective group
behavior. Since the total number of interactions differed only slightly between the
two groups, that result also meant that the experimental group had more positive
interactions than the control group that received the placebo training. Table 1
summarizes the interaction data from the study. There were 2,482 total communications in the experimental group and 2,671 in the control group, a difference of
only 7.1 percent.
In order to convey the basic meaning of data such as those above in a simplified manner that would also allow an easy comparison of the difference between two
groups, we developed a metric called the index of amicability. This index compared
the number of positive and negative interactions in the form of a ratio.5 An amicability index of 1 means there are equal numbers of positive and negative interactions. An index smaller than 1 (e.g., 0.75) indicates that there are more negative
5. The index of amicability is the ratio of positive to negative interactions for a given group,
or, AI=P/N, where AI is the amicability index, P is the number of emotionally positive
interactions, and N is the number of emotionally negative interactions.
115
than positive interactions. An index greater than 1 (e.g., 25.0) shows that there
are more positive than negative interactions. In our simulations, the experimental
group index of amicability was 44.3. The control group had an index of amicability
of 14.8. Thus, using the difference in index of amicability between the two groups
as a measure of the efficacy of the preflight training, we find a very large improvement in social functioning of 299 percent from a small investment of 2 hours in a
training program.
It is important to remember that the total number of negative interactions
was low in both groups and that both groups enjoyed the experience very much.
There were no nasty incidents in either group. However, the group with the preflight training had an index of amicability nearly three times greater than that of
the placebo group.
It is necessary to report publicly the above civilian spaceflight simulation study
at this time in order to employ its results in discussing the management of negative
interpersonal interactions. As the impetus for space tourism ramps up, more such
studies will be forthcoming that will attempt to replicate these findings. They will
also greatly broaden the range of variables explored. We now have useful information, especially about simulated civilian spaceflight, to use in discussing all interpersonal interactionpositive, neutral, and negative. One of the purposes of this
paper is to excite other scientists to conduct such research. Bales and others have
given us the tools to be able to perform interpersonal interaction studies. This
report of the study conducted in my laboratory demonstrates that such studies can
be accomplished and produce valuable results.
Shortly before we conducted the simulation study in my laboratory, Sandal,
Vaernes, and Ursin reported a simulation study of long-duration spaceflights (30
and 60 days) that they had conducted for the European Space Agency (ESA).6 This
group of researchers used decompression chambers at a naval base as spaceflight
simulators. This study, too, used the Bales Interaction Analysis technique. We patterned our design after theirs so that our data could be compared. Prior anecdotal
evidence from extreme environments (e.g., wintering over in Antarctica) suggested
that negative interpersonal interactions among persons in the environment tended
6. G. Sandal, R. Vaernes, and H. Ursin, Interpersonal Relations During Simulated Space

Missions, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 66, no. 7 (July 1995): 1724.
116
to peak at the midpoint and shortly before the end of a stay.7 If that were the case
it, would be important information for flight managers and participants to know in
understanding and managing spaceflight events.
Here was an illustration of using a simulator as a laboratory to subject anecdotal
analog information to experimental testing to establish more reliably the anecdotal information. The researchers in the ESA study in fact found that the anecdotal information was true and held, independent of the duration (30 or 60 days).
The Delta Clipper team was interested in much shorter timespans than those
with which the long-duration studies had dealt. They wanted to know if this same
phenomenon held for short periods, too, such as the two-day simulation we were
conducting for them. We designed our study to test whether the negative interactions in our groups peaked at the midpoints and just before the ends of the simulated flights. We found that our short-duration experimental study corroborated the
findings of both the long-duration experimental studies and the anecdotal studies.
We then had two experimental studies that confirmed the anecdotal findings
that negative interpersonal interactions peak at the middle and near the ends of
group activities in which the durations of the events are known to the participants.
What is more, the finding was independent of the durations involved. It held for
short periods, as found in the study reported here, and longer periods, as reported
in the ESA study. This information was useful beyond the realm of spaceflight and
probably generalizes to all social epochs such as family vacations and school semesters, even if the participants are not confined.
Both of these studies reported that the great preponderance of interpersonal
interactions was neutral and that positive interactions were much more frequent
than negative ones. Both studies reported that people got along quite well in simulations of differing durations, with more formal and less formal social structure,
and in private as well as government settings. The results of the study in my laboratory should be good news for the neophyte space tourism industry. It showed not
only that relatively unselected, minimally trained civilians can tolerate the extreme
environment of a spaceflight simulator, but also that they find the experience pro-
7. A. A. Harrison and Y. A. Clearwater, eds., From Antarctica to Outer Space: Life in Isolation
and Confinement (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1991).
117
foundly pleasing. In fact, these results hint that one could build a viable business
out of just selling simulated spaceflights.
Another encouraging finding of the study reported here is the powerful effect
of preflight group dynamics training on reducing negative interactions and increasing those that are positive. We are reminded by Freedmans Density Intensity
Hypothesis that crowding is not necessarily an aversive stimulus, but that it does
tend to amplify whatever emotion is extant in a group.
Research that answers questions invariably raises new ones, and that is true of
this research. Here is a sample of some questions raised by this research:
1. For how long does the effect of preflight training last? In this project, it only
had to persist for 45 hours.
2. Does the effect of preflight training end abruptly, or does it taper off?
3. Does a small increment of booster training return preflight training to its original effectiveness?
4. Which of the variables involved in the preflight training are responsible for the
effect it produced?
5. Are there other variables that could be added to the preflight training syllabus
that would increase its positive effect or duration or both?
A CALL FOR A DIFFERENT TYPE

OF THINKING
As the history of spaceflight unfolds, I contend that now we are at a transition

point between the exploratory and settlement stages of spaceflight that is similar to
the opening of the American West in the United States. The early exploration of
the West was conducted by a relatively few brave and hardy explorer sorts with an
emphasis on daring and pushing back frontiers. There was much ambiguity about
the challenges and dangers that lay in uncharted territory. These beginning forays
into the unknown were followed by the incursion of hardy trappers, hunters, miners, and various tradesmen. Settlers soon followed, and eventually tourists did as
well. In parallel with the western movement of people, technology was improving
to facilitate the western expansiontransportation evolved from stage coaches and
Conestoga wagons to steamboats and trains.
118
So, too, the early stages of spaceflight were conducted by heroic persons such
as Yuri Gagarin and John Glenn. Space stations were eventually established in
the frontier, and people learned to adapt to life in space. Now we are planning to
return to the Moon and establish a permanent settlement there. The newest frontier dream, the planet Mars, is several orders of magnitude distant from the Moon.
We have an International Space Station with a short but significant history of longduration multinational crews. It has even been visited several times by tourists. In
the beginning, the attitude about equipment design was simple: get there, survive,
and get back in one piece. So too with astronaut selection: prove that you have the
right stuffwhich translated to be a high-performance test pilot.
Our technology is much more sophisticated now than it was in the early days of
the space program. Now we are designing vastly larger and more complex space stations, Moon colonies, long-duration spaceships for the journey to Mars, and space
hotels. The people we will be sending to these sites will be scientists, technicians,
service persons, and tourists. I believe that the shift in emphasis implied by these
changes requires a shift in the way we think about space equipment and the personnel who will use that equipment.
THINKING ABOUT EQU IPMENT
It is no longer enough to design to survive.

The time has come to design to thrive.
In the beginning of the space program, engineers were not eager to have people on board space vehicles. The design spirit seemed to be something like, We
are confident this will work, so lets use it. If it is uncomfortable or it is difficult to
operate, then find astronauts who can tolerate it and who can be trained to make
it work. We now need to shift design thinking to a human factors and ergonomics point of view. This kind of shift in emphasis means designing the apparatus to
match the capabilities and aspirations of those who will use it. For example, space
vehicles are currently very noisy. The noise is due to the fact that warm air does
not rise in weightless environments. Without convection currents, any air that is
to be moved must be moved mechanically. The large number of fans and bends in
ductwork create much of the noise. Spacecraft typically have sound levels of about
119
72db.8 This is about like driving a car at 100 kilometers per hour (kph) with the
windows rolled down. By comparison, a living room on Earth would be about 45 db.
This is much too noisy for comfort over long durations. Such noise levels
degrade performance, communication, and satisfaction.9 Another human factors
issue is spaciousness and privacy. Once the Space Shuttles became the primary
heavy-lift spacecraft for the United States, the size of their cargo bays became
the limiting factor for space hardware. Thus, the U.S. Destiny module on the
International Space Station is 4.3 meters in diameter and 8.5 meters long. All of
the other modules are similar. Fortunately, we are on the verge of having space
modules considerably larger in volume than those that existed on the Soviet
space station Mir or those currently on the International Space Station. These
are inflatable modules, such as NASAs Transhab10 and other structures based
on it, that are being privately developed by Bigelow Aerospace in Las Vegas,
Nevada. Bigelows GenesisI (launched 12 July 2006) and GenesisII (launched
28 June 2007)11 are currently in orbit and functioning as planned. NASA canceled the Transhab program in 2000, but development work (based on NASAs
efforts) continues at Bigelow Aerospace, and that is encouraging. The Genesis
modules are both prototype, proof-of-concept structures in flight at the present
time. Both models of Genesis were launched on Russian rockets and then inflated
in space. Having a crowded cabin on a spaceship transporting people to space is
no problem; after all, it is only a 100-mile trip. But living for extended periods
of months with little privacy and cramped quarters, while obviously tolerable (as
on the International Space Station), is not comfortable. The efforts of Bigelow
8. H. A. Wichman, Designing User-Friendly Civilian Spacecraft, paper 95-604 in

Proceedings of the 6th International Space Conference of Pacific Basin Societies 91 (December
1995), available online at http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/designing_user_friendly_civilian_
spacecraft.shtml (accessed 18 June 2007).
9. Paul A. Bell, Thomas C. Greene, Jeffrey D. Fisher, and Andrew Baum, Environmental
Psychology, 5th ed. (Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace, 2003).
10. K. Dismukes (curator), Transhab Concept, International Space Station History, http://
spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/station/transhab/ (accessed 3 July 2007).
11. E. Haakonstad, Genesis II Different from Genesis I, Out There, http://web.archive.org/
web/20070528014400/http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/out_there/genesis_II_difference.php
(accessed 3 July 2007).
120
Aerospace to move beyond the limits of past equipment design is illustrative of

the shift in thinking that I am proposing as timely.
T H I N K I N G A B O U T S PA C E FA R E R S
Effective behavior stems not from good people

It is called forth from good environments
In the early days of the space program, little was known about the effects of
spaceflight on humans, physically or mentally, and the equipment was rudimentary.
At that time, it made sense to experiment only with rigorously selected individuals
who were exceptional physical and mental specimens. Those days are now over. We
are about to enter an era of space tourism. The great message of social psychology
is that the behavior we usually attribute to our character is much more determined
by our environment than we ever imagined. This finding was amply demonstrated
in the following three projects.
In his famous study of obedience, Stanley Milgram showed that everyday
Americans could be made to behave cruelly by the making of subtle changes in an
academic-like environment.12
In an infamous 1964 murder, a young woman named Kitty Genovese was
slowly killed through the night while she pleaded for help, but no one came to her
aid or even called the police. Many of the people living in her apartment building admitted hearing her but were not motivated to help. Shortly thereafter, John
Darley and Bibb Latan began their classic studies of bystander intervention and
clarified the social and environmental variables that call forth or inhibit bystander
intervention no matter who the bystander may be.13
Finally, Philip Zimbardo, in his classic 1971 Stanford Prison experiment,
showed how social circumstances could cause a randomly assigned group of
12. Stanley Milgram, Behavioral Study of Obedience, Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology 67 (1963): 371378.
13. John Darley and Bibb Latan, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8 (1968):
377383.
121
Stanford students to be so cruel to another randomly assigned group that the

study had to be terminated.14
The three projects described are dramatic because they dealt with negative
behavior. But in the study reported in this paper, with only a 2-hour training program
for essentially unselected people of a wide range of ages, we were able to produce an
index of amicability in one group that was nearly three times greater than that in an
equivalent group. The argument here is not against any selection. Obviously passengers in an airliner want their pilot to have good vision and a healthy heart. The argument here is for a shift in emphasis toward making it possible for a broad spectrum
of people to become space tourists by briefly but effectively developing in them the
social skills necessary for a safe and pleasant experience in space.
The spaceflight simulator is an excellent tool, both in which to conduct the
necessary social psychology research to show what needs to be done and as the vehicle for conducting the training exercises to bring that about. Interestingly, in terms
of selection, the spaceflight simulator provides people with an opportunity to see
if they will like such an experience; if not, they will select themselves out without
jeopardizing the safety or happiness of others on a real spaceflight.
There is a subset of social psychology theory referred to as attribution theory.
Much of the research in this area indicates that humans have a tendency to attribute
peoples behavior to their character. This is known as the fundamental attribution
error. It is the tendency to over-attribute the motivation for a persons behavior to
that persons character and underestimate the effect of situational factors. When we
emphasize selecting the right type of person for spaceflight instead of creating the
right type of social and environmental factors, we are committing the fundamental
attribution error. We have seen in the three social psychology research projects cited
above how good people could be made to do bad things by simple manipulation of
situational circumstances. We have also seen in my Aerospace Psychology Laboratory
study presented here that people in one group similar to people in another group
could have the negative behaviors they would be expected to produce dramatically
reduced (58 percent; see table 1) by a small amount of focused training. Emphasizing
selection will diminish the number of prospective spacefarers and inhibit the growth
of space tourism. However, emphasizing environmental design and training instead
14. David G. Meyers, Social Psychology, 9th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006).
122
will have the effect of broadening the spectrum of potential spacefarers, facilitating
the growth of space commercialization, and, finally, increasing the satisfaction everyone experiences from spaceflights. The primary tool available for fulfilling this shift
in emphasis is the spaceflight simulator.
As this paper is being written, the European Space Agency has just issued a
worldwide invitation for volunteers to participate in a 520-day simulated Mars mission. Let us hope that this is only the beginning of a long series of studies that will
reflect a fundamental change in the way the aerospace industry thinks about the
behavior of people in space vehicles and habitats.
123
Chapter 6
Gender Composition and Crew Cohesion During

Long-Duration Space Missions
Jason P. Kring
Department of Human Factors and Systems
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Megan A. Kaminski
Program in Human Factors and Applied Cognition
George Mason University
ABSTRACT
A major factor in the success of future long-duration space missions is the

psychosocial functioning of the crew. An individuals psychological health and
well-being has a major impact on how well he or she adapts to the demands of isolation, confinement, and workload associated with complex missions. Although
each crewmember possesses a unique combination of knowledge, skills, and abilities
that influence their capacity to adapt, in this chapter we argue that mission success
also relies on how well an individual functions in the larger social context of the
mission. More specifically, interactions between crewmembers, as well as between
the crew and ground personnel, play a significant role in the crews overall performance. Although many variables affect crew interactions, such as opportunities for
personal space and privacy afforded by the spacecrafts architecture, we contend
that the most prominent factor is the crews composition. Beyond the size of the
crew, the mixture of cultural and ethnic backgrounds, and the blend of professional
expertise, the most salient crew composition variable is gender.
Since even before Valentina Tereshkovas flight in 1963, women have played
an integral role in the history of human spaceflight. As of April 2010, for instance,
53 different women have flown in space, many as part of mixed-gendered crews
aboard Russian space stations or the International Space Station (ISS). The April
2010 flight of Space Shuttle Discovery to the ISS set a record for the most women
125
in space at one time as three female crewmembers aboard DiscoveryDorothy

Metcalf-Lindenburger, Stephanie Wilson, and Naoko Yamazakijoined Station
resident Tracy Caldwell Dyson in orbit. As the number of mixed-gender crews will
likely increase in the future, including those taking voyages to near-Earth asteroids
and then to Mars, it is prudent to ask if there are any potential limitations to men
and women working together for extended periods of time.
This chapter reviews findings from mixed-gender crews in spaceflight as well as
relevant analogs like aviation, Antarctic research bases, and other complex environments to highlight how gender composition moderates crew interactions and
performance. To explore this relationship, we focus specifically on the variable of
cohesion, or the degree to which crewmembers are committed to each other and to
the crews shared task, and offer recommendations for the optimal gender composition for future space missions in terms of this important crew variable.
INTRODUCTION
In 2004, the Bush administrations Vision for Space Exploration refocused the
U.S. human spaceflight program on returning people to the Moon by 2020 and then
sending a crew to Mars. The Obama administrations plan, announced in April 2010,
focuses on asteroid rendezvous missions as stepping-stones for a Mars flight. Regardless
of the specifics of the plan, sending humans beyond low-Earth orbit is ambitious on
many fronts and will require the development of a host of new technologies, from
improved launch and propulsion systems to a completely new crew vehicle. Scientists
and engineers must also work diligently to design systems and mission activities to
protect against physiological risks associated with long-duration spaceflight (LDSF),
including radiation exposure, bone degradation, and muscle loss. However, beyond
the technical and physiological challenges, a major obstacle to LDSF is the psychosocial environment during the mission. In conjunction with individual responses to
isolation and confinement, researchers contend that problems associated with crew
interactions may be a significant limiting factor for extended space missions.1 Jack
1. Nick Kanas and Dietrich Manzey, Space Psychology and Psychiatry (El Segundo, CA:
Microcosm Press and Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003).
126
Gender Composition and Crew Cohesion During Long-Duration Space Missions
Stuster emphasizes this point in his review of literature from spaceflight and similar
domains like polar bases and stations. Based on the writings of behavioral scientists
and accounts from explorers and Antarctic personnel, he concludes that the smooth
functioning of the group contributes greatly to mission success and can be essential to
survival under emergency conditions.2
The factors influencing something as dynamic and complex as human interaction are, of course, numerous. For even the simplest one-on-one conversation,
the personalities of the individuals, their motivations, their organizational roles
(e.g., leader versus follower), and the context of the conversation affect each persons perception and interpretation of the interaction. Nonverbal cues, such as
body posture, and paralinguistic cues, like the tone of voice, also shape the interaction, altering the degree to which the conversation is deemed pleasant, threatening, or productive. However, in the context of a long-duration space mission
with three or more crewmembers, the complexity of human interaction increases
significantly. For one thing, interactions occur in the context of a high-workload
and high-stress environment. The crew is under tremendous pressure to perform
tasks correctly and according to strict timelines with little room for error, creating
a setting ripe for tension. Furthermore, beyond their own internal interactions,
the crew must also routinely communicate with numerous groups on the ground.
These can range from flight-related personnel (e.g., flight controllers, engineers,
medical staff), to family members, to even representatives of the media and governments around the world.
Nevertheless, the most prominent factor affecting crew interactions is the composition of the crew itself. Findings from the behavioral and social sciences, spaceflight, and similar settings indicate that the number of people on a team or crew and
their individual characteristics are influential to the teams interactions and success.
Evidence from spaceflight and analogous settings like Antarctica and submarines
indicate, for instance, that the size of the crew has a major impact on crew interactions. Harrison concludes that larger crews possess several advantages over smaller
crews, such as a greater range of skills and abilities, as well as providing more oppor-
2. Jack Stuster, Bold Endeavors: Lessons from Polar and Space Exploration (Annapolis, MD:
Naval Institute Press, 1996), p. 165.
127
tunities to form friendships and create a more interesting social experience.3 Larger
crews also appear to get along better, exhibit less hostility, be more stable, and make
better and more efficient decisions, particularly if they are odd-numbered, because
in the event of a tie, one crewmember can cast the deciding vote.4
In addition to the size of the crew, crew composition also refers to the characteristics of the individual members. Each crewmember brings his or her own unique
qualities to the crew based on his or her experiences; attitudes; personality; motivation; and combination of knowledge, skills, and abilities. For example, differences
related to national culture and ethnic background are important crew composition considerations. Although not a significant problem, there have been cases in
which cultural diversity led to difficulties in crew interactions. For instance, U.S.
astronauts cited cultural factors related to personal hygiene and housekeeping practices as partially responsible for incidents of miscommunication and interpersonal
conflict before, during, and after international Space Shuttle missions based on
responses to a survey conducted by Patricia Santy and colleagues.5 Nine respondentsastronauts from flights between 1981 and 1990reported over 40 incidents
of misunderstanding and interpersonal friction related to culture, with at least five
rated as having a high impact on the mission.
This chapter focuses on the most salient crew composition characteristic that
influences crew interactions: the gender of the individual crewmembers. For this
discussion, it is worthwhile to reiterate the distinction between the terms sex
and gender. As Stephen Davis and Joseph Palladino note, sex is a biological
classification of male or female, whereas gender refers to the cultural and social
expectations about what is masculine or feminine.6 In the context of interpersonal
relations, these gender-based expectations significantly influence how a man or
woman interacts with others, from styles of verbal and nonverbal communication
to the expression and interpretation of emotions. Although gender differences have
3. Albert A. Harrison, Spacefaring: The Human Dimension (Berkeley: University of California

Press, 2001), p. 138.
4.
Kanas and Manzey, Space Psychology and Psychiatry, pp. 8788.
5. Patricia Santy, Albert Holland, L. Looper, and Regina Marcondes-North, Multicultural

Factors in the Space Environment: Results of an International Shuttle Crew Debrief, Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine 64 (1993): 196200.
6.
128
Stephen F. Davis and Joseph J. Palladino, Psychology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2007).
the potential to affect a number of variables related to how crews interact and perform, we will address how gender, specifically in the mixture of men and women,
influences the cohesion of the crew. Cohesion, defined here as the degree to which
individuals in a crew or on a team are committed to each other (interpersonal cohesion) and to the goals of the teams task (task cohesion), has received considerable
empirical attention. Although there is some disagreement over the specific relationship between cohesion and performance, the general consensus is that teams
possessing higher levels of cohesion function more effectively and exhibit better
performance than low-cohesion teams.
This chapter reviews findings from mixed-gender crews in spaceflight as well as
relevant analogs like aviation, Antarctic research bases, and other complex environments to highlight how gender composition moderates crew cohesion and, ultimately,
performance. The discussion also addresses challenges associated with interpersonal
relationships during LDSF and whether guidelines are needed to limit or prohibit
romantic relationships. We first describe what is known about mixed-gender teams in
space and similar settings and then later turn to the issue of team cohesion.
W O M E N A N D M E N I N S PA C E A N D
ANALOGOUS SETTINGS
Even before Valentina Tereshkovas 1963 flight aboard Vostok 6, women have
played an integral role in the history of human spaceflight. According to NASAs
History Division, 53 different women have flown in space as of April 2010, including Soviet/Russian cosmonauts, American astronauts, and citizens of other countries, with 47 of these women flying with NASA.7 Even before the U.S. program
got off the ground, the Woman in Space program proved that women could endure
the rigors of astronaut selection. Thirteen female pilots passed the same physical examinations at the Lovelace Clinic in New Mexico used to screen and select
male pilots for the Mercury program in the late 1950s and early 1960s.8 In space, it
7. NASA History Division, Women in Space, NASA, available at http://history.nasa.gov/

women.html (accessed 7 June 2010).
8. NASA History Division, Lovelaces Woman in Space Program, NASA, available at
http://history.nasa.gov/flats.html (accessed 7 June 2010).
129
was not until the early 1980s that the number of female astronauts and cosmonauts
began to rise. In fact, nearly 20 years passed between Tereshkovas record-making
flight and Svetlana Savitskayas 1982 mission aboard a Russian Soyuz, which was
followed closely by the flight of the first U.S. woman in space, Sally Ride, in 1983.
Today, it is not uncommon for women to conduct extravehicular activities; pilot
or command the Space Shuttle, as Eileen Collins has done twice; or command the
ISS, as in the case of Peggy Whitson.
With the increase in female astronauts and cosmonauts, the number of mixedgender crews has also risen. As of 2009, seven crews of men and women had worked
together during long-duration space station missions aboard the USSRs Salyut station, the Soviet/Russian station Mir, or the ISS. As the number of mixed-gender
crews will likely increase in the future, including for voyages to asteroids and then
to Mars, it is prudent to ask if there are any potential limitations to men and women
working together for extended periods of time.
On the surface, this mixture would seem ideal as each gender offers unique and
complimentary skills and abilities to a mission. The behavioral literature is replete with
studies of gender differences in cognition, sensation and perception, and team performance in business settings; however, few studies have focused specifically on gender
differences in the context of extended space missions. One question is how the mixture of men and women in space crews affects overall crew performance. In the general
team literature, for example, findings suggest that men and women do work in slightly
different ways that may influence team performance such as leadership style and reactions to stress.9 Research also suggests that the unique contributions from each gender
often improve team performance in settings such as health care, manufacturing, and
extreme environments, thereby supporting the use of mixed-gender teams.10
For instance, in some contexts, all-male teams make less accurate and more
overly aggressive decisions than mixed-gender teams.11 However, these and other
9. A. H. Eagly, M. C. Johannesen-Schmidt, and M. L. van Engen, Transformational,

Transactional, and Laissez-faire Leadership Styles: A Meta-analysis Comparing Men and
Women, Psychological Bulletin 129, no. 4 (2003): 569591.
10. S. L. Bishop, Evaluating Teams in Extreme Environments: From Issues to Answers,
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 75, no. 7, sect. II (2004): C14C21.
11. J. A. LePine, J. R. Hollenbeck, D. R. Ilgen, J. A. Colquitt, and A. Ellis, Gender
Composition, Situational Strength and Team Decision-making Accuracy: A Criterion
130
results are qualified by the fact that gender differences in team performance are
often moderated by other factors such as the type of task and the personality composition of the individual team members. With regard to personality in team sports,
for example, male and female athletes exhibit different personality profiles and
attitudes toward recreational activities.12 Furthermore, gender heterogeneity may
influence the development of team factors that contribute to successful team performance like cohesion and trust. As noted above, cohesion is a teams commitment
to a shared task and attraction between team members, whereas trust refers to attitudes held by team members regarding their emotional closeness with, and the reliability of, other members of the team. How men and women respond to stress, for
instance, can influence both cohesion and trust, particularly at the interpersonal or
emotional level. N. S. Endler notes that men tend to cope with stress using fight
or flight strategies, whereas women employ a tend or befriend approach.13 This
latter strategy may therefore evoke more emotional closeness among crewmembers.
In spaceflight, mixed-gender crews have flown successfully since the 1980s;
however, a majority of these missions were short-duration flights of one to two
weeks. For example, although no performance issues were attributed to Svetlana
Savitskayas gender when she visited the Soviet Salyut 7 station for eight days in
1982, cosmonaut Valentin Lebedevs account of the visit suggests that gender stereotyping did occur. After presenting her with a floral print apron upon her arrival,
he declared, Look, Sveta, even though you are a pilot and a cosmonaut, you are still
a woman first. Would you please do us the honor of being our hostess tonight?14 For
longer-duration missions lasting between five and seven months, anecdotal reports
from two mixed-gender missions aboard the ISS indicate that the crew also got
along and functioned effectively.15
Decomposition Approach, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 88, no. 1
(2002): 445475.
12. Bruce D. Kirkcaldy, Personality Profiles at Various Levels of Athletic Participation,
Personality and Individual Differences 3, no. 3 (1982): 321326.
13. N. S. Endler, The Joint Effects of Person and Situation Factors on Stress in Spaceflight,
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 75, no. 7, sect. II (2004): C25.
14. Valentin Lebedev, Diary of a Cosmonaut: 211 Days in Space (New York: Bantam Books,
1988), p. 191.
15. Kanas and Manzey, Space Psychology and Psychiatry, p. 77.
131
More scientific observations of mixed-gender crews are available from research

in space analogsextreme settings that possess similar environmental and social
features. In her review of team literature in extreme environments, S. L. Bishop
found support for using mixed-gender crews to improve long-duration performance,
concluding, The presence of both men and women appears to normalize group
behavior in ways that promote individual and group functioning.16 This result
may stem from differences each gender possesses that benefit team performance
in specific situations. For example, groups composed of both men and women perform well on tasks requiring diverse perspectives and interpersonal skills, and cohesion appears to increase due to womens interpersonal style and ability to involve
all group members in the task.17
Additional support for employing mixed-gender teams comes from Stusters
findings that although the inclusion of women at U.S. Antarctic stations in the
early 1980s resulted in some minor conflicts, in general, gender diversity had a
positive influence on morale and productivity.18 E. Rosnet et al. found a comparable beneficial effect of mixed-gender groups at a French polar station; however,
some women reported problems related to rude behavior from their male colleagues
and instances of sexual harassment.19 Interpersonal relationships between men and
women and sexual issues may also impact mixed-gender crews during extended
isolation. Crewmembers of an experiment termed the Simulation of Flight of
International Crew on Space Station (SFINCSS) reported increased crew tension
after an incident in which a male Russian commander from one group attempted to
kiss a female Canadian crewmember from another group during a New Years Eve
celebration in the enclosed space station mock-up.20
In summary, despite the potential for conflict and tension, evidence from spaceflight and related environments suggests that the inclusion of men and women
16. Bishop, Evaluating Teams in Extreme Environments: C17.
17. Ibid., p. C17.
18. Stuster, Bold Endeavors, p. 178.
19. E. Rosnet, S. Jurion, G. Cazes, and C. Bachelard, Mixed-gender Groups: Coping
Strategies and Factors of Psychological Adaptation in a Polar Environment, Aviation, Space,
and Environmental Medicine 75, no. 7, sect. II (2004): C10C13.
20. Gro M. Sandal, Culture and Tension During an International Space Station Simulation:
Results from SFINCSS 99, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 75, no. 7, sect. II
(2004): C44C51.
132
on long-duration space missions will benefit individual and crew functioning.

However, more detailed analyses are needed to identify team performance issues
specifically influenced by the gender of the crewmembers. One important question
is how gender heterogeneity affects the development of crew cohesion.
COHESION
In general, cohesion refers to the closeness and solidarity of a group or team of

individuals. However, researchers have long debated the specifics of the construct,
particularly the number of associated factors or dimensions. Early researchers used
a multidimensional approach. L. Festinger, for instance, defined cohesiveness as
the resultant of all the forces acting on the members to remain in the group. These
forces may depend on the attractiveness or unattractiveness of either the prestige
of the group, members in the group, or the activities in which the group engages.21
In other words, cohesion was seen to result from one or more of three sources:
group prestige, interpersonal attraction, or attraction to the groups tasks. Similarly,
C.W.Langfred conceptualized cohesion as the degree to which group members feel
a part of the group and their desire or motivation to remain in the group.22 In a military context, G. L. Siebold and D. R. Kelly posited that cohesion is a unit or group
state varying in the extent to which the mechanisms of social control maintain a
structured pattern of positive social relationships (bonds) between unit members,
individually and collectively, necessary to achieve the unit or groups purpose.23
In contrast, some have argued that cohesion only encompasses one dimension.
Cartwright and others, for example, defined cohesion simply as the degree to which
group members desire to remain in the group.24 Similarly, Kenneth Dion defined
21. L. Festinger, Informal Social Communication, Psychological Review 57 (1950): 274.

22. C. W. Langfred, Is Group Cohesiveness a Double-edged Sword? An Investigation of the
Effects of Cohesiveness on Performance, Small Group Research 29 (1998): 124143.
23. G. L. Siebold and D. R. Kelly, Development of the Combat Platoon Cohesion Questionnaire,
ARI Technical Report 817, ADA 204917 (Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for
the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1988).
24. D. Cartwright, The Nature of Group Cohesiveness, in Group Dynamics: Research and
Theory, ed. D. Cartwright and A. Zander, 3rd ed. (New York: Harper and Row, 1968).
133
group cohesion as the social glue that binds members of a group and keeps them
together in the face of internal and external threats.25
More recently, several authors have begun differentiating between the social or
interpersonal aspects of cohesion and those related to the group task. Interpersonal
cohesion includes dimensions such as interpersonal attraction and the intensity and
positive nature of relationships.26 Task cohesion, in contrast, refers to the attraction or commitment to the group and task. Task-cohesive groups, according to S. J.
Zaccaro, J. Gualtieri, and D. Minionis, also care about the success of other group
members because their own goal attainment is often inextricably bound to the collective achievement. They will exert strong effort on behalf of the group and their
fellow members to facilitate group processes.27 Combining these two dimensions,
we can define cohesion as the combination of task cohesion, referring to the degree
to which group or team members are committed to the task, and interpersonal
cohesion, the degree to which individuals are attracted to each other and have positive relationships. Before addressing this construct in terms of gender differences, it
is worth briefly noting what is known regarding cohesion and performance.
After decades of research, dating back to the 1950s, the relationship between
cohesion and team performance continues to generate debate. Early efforts concluded that group productivity and cohesiveness were not clearly related.28 For
example, R. M. Stogdill found, in his review of 34 studies, that roughly a third of
the studies showed cohesive groups to be more productive, with a third reporting
that cohesive groups were less productive and the remaining third showing no difference.29 However, none of the studies referenced by Stogdill used the same definition for group cohesion, and many made no attempt even to measure cohesiveness.
Later research showed support for a positive correlation between cohesion and per-
25. Kenneth L. Dion, Interpersonal and Group Processes in Long-Term Spaceflight Crews:
Perspectives from Social and Organizational Psychology, Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine 75, no. 7, sect. II (2004): C39.
26. S. A. Carless and C. De Paola, The Measurement of Cohesion in Work Teams, Small
Group Research 31, no. 1 (2000): 7188.
27. S. J. Zaccaro, J. Gualtieri, and D. Minionis, Task Cohesion as a Facilitator of Team
Decision Making Under Temporal Emergency, Military Psychology 7, no. 2 (1995): 7793.
28. I. D. Steiner, Group Processes and Productivity (New York: Academic Press, 1972).
29. R. M. Stogdill, Group Productivity, Drive, and Cohesiveness, Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance 8 (1972): 2643.
134
formance, but some have argued that these effects were often moderated by additional variables.30 The current view is that cohesion does have some influence over
team processes and how well a team performs, but that the effect often depends on
the type of cohesion, the type of task, and the interaction with other team variables.
In the case of group performance, a majority of authors cite task cohesion as the
critical component in the cohesion-performance effect. For example, task cohesion
has been related to better performance for teams making decisions under temporal
stress.31 Particularly for additive tasks, for which individual efforts are combined to
complete an overall group task, S. J. Zaccaro and C. A. Lowe found that high task
cohesion increased performance, but that interpersonal cohesion had no effect.32
Such is not the case with disjunctive tasks, for which group members must work
together to produce a collective product. Zaccaro and M. C. McCoy had groups rank
15 items in order of importance to group survival in a simulated survival situation task.
Results indicated that high task and high interpersonal cohesion groups outperformed
groups either high on one type but low on another, or low on both types. For disjunctive
tasks, Zaccaro and McCoy noted, High task-based cohesion increases the likelihood
that high ability members will contribute to the group problem-solving, whereas
high interpersonal cohesion facilitates the procurement, recognition, and acceptance
of high quality contributions.33 In addition, better-performing teams competing in
a complex business simulation game, a disjunctive-type task, were more cohesive, as
represented by higher scores on measures of interpersonal and task cohesion. The
authors maintained that cohesive teams are better performers because they are able
to satisfy the social needs of the team members while simultaneously demonstrating
a shared commitment to the team task.34
30. S. M. Gully, D. J. Devine, and D. J. Whitney, A Meta-analysis of Cohesion and

Performance: Effects of Levels of Analysis and Task Interdependence, Small Group Research 26,
no. 4 (1995): 497520.
31. Zaccaro, Gualtieri, and Minionis, Task Cohesion: 7793.
32. S. J. Zaccaro and C. A. Lowe, Cohesiveness and Performance on an Additive Task:
Evidence for Multidimensionality, Journal of Social Psychology 128, no. 4 (1988): 547558.
33. S. J. Zaccaro and M. C. McCoy, The Effects of Task and Interpersonal Cohesiveness
on Performance of a Disjunctive Group Task, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 18, no. 10
(1988): 837851.
34. P. Miesing and J. Preble, Group Processes and Performance in a Complex Business
Simulation, Small Group Behavior 16 (1985): 325338.
135
Despite the apparent support that task cohesion and, to a lesser extent, interpersonal cohesion positively influence team and group performance, part of the difficulty in defining the cohesion-performance effect is attributed to the influence of
moderator variables. C. R. Evans and K. Dion, in their meta-analyses of over 372
groups, showed that group cohesion led to increased performance; however, the
effect was relatively small and appeared to depend on other factors.35 One example
is A. Tziner and Y. Vardis finding that for three-person tank crews, performance,
effectiveness, and cohesiveness were correlated only when studied in combination
with the command style of tank commanders. Highly cohesive teams exhibited better performance only if the command style emphasized an orientation toward the
task and the team members. For command styles only emphasizing team member
orientation, low cohesiveness was related to better performance.36 Another perspective is that cohesion is associated with performance, but that high levels of team
cohesion may negatively affect a team, as in the case of groupthink or in teams
whose norms do not support productivity.37 If the predominate group norm is a slow
work pace, cohesiveness might actually reduce performance.
Similar to the effect of moderator variables, another complicating factor in
studying the cohesion-performance effect is determining which comes first. There
remains significant controversy over the causal nature of the relationship. In the
sports domain, Daniel Landers, Michael Wilkinson, Brad Hatfield, and Heather
Barber commented, Even when the same measuring instruments are employed for
interacting team sports, some studies demonstrate a reciprocal causality between
the two variables (i.e., cohesion affects performance outcome and vice versa),
whereas other studies find that performance outcome affects cohesion, but cohesion does not influence performance.38
35. C. R. Evans and K. Dion, Group Cohesion and Performance: A Meta-analysis, Small
Group Research 22, no. 2 (1991):175186.
36. A. Tziner and Y. Vardi, Ability as a Moderator Between Cohesiveness and Tank Crews
Performance, Journal of Occupational Behavior 4 (1983): 137143.
37. T. W. Porter and B. S. Lilly, The Effects of Conflict, Trust, and Task Commitment on
Project Team Performance, International Journal of Conflict Management 7, no. 4 (1996):
361376.
38. Daniel M. Landers, Michael O. Wilkinson, Brad D. Hatfield, and Heather Barber,
Causality and the Cohesion-Performance Relationship, Journal of Sport Psychology 4, no. 2
(1982): 170183.
136
Taken together, the above studies suggest that there is a relationship between
the cohesion of a team or crew and its performance, although the specifics remain
unclear. In the context of LDSF, it is even more difficult to research the construct
given that crew cohesion is not stable over the course of the mission. Dion, for
example, cites several studies showing that cohesion declines in the middle and
later stages of a mission as reflected by increases in crew tension and conflict.39
Likewise, Nick Kanas found that cohesion levels were significantly higher during
the first few weeks of missions than in later stages.40
In summary, despite methodological differences between cohesion-performance
studies, the influence of moderator variables, and disagreement over the direction
of the relationship, several conclusions are possible. First, both task and interpersonal cohesion may improve performance and group processes, but task cohesion
more consistently predicts performance. Second, on additive-type tasks, high interpersonal cohesion can have a negative effect on performance due to more non-taskrelevant conversations between team members, but high levels of both task and
interpersonal cohesion benefit performance on disjunctive tasks. What these studies do not demonstrate, however, is how the composition of the team with regard
to gender affects the development and maintenance of cohesion.
GENDER COMPOSITION AND

CREW COHESION
With regard to gender specifically, the team literature suggests that men and
women do work in slightly different ways, such as in their leadership styles and reactions to stress, that can influence cohesion. In addition, even though the unique
contributions from each gender often improve team performance in some extreme
environments analogous to spaceflight, there are concerns over how gender stereotypes and disagreements negatively affect crew interactions. If we assume that
teams possessing higher levels of cohesion, in general, perform more effectively
than teams with low cohesion levels, then a primary consideration when selecting
39. Dion, Interpersonal and Group Processes in Long-Term Spaceflight Crews: C39.
40. N. Kanas, Group Interactions in Space, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 75,
no. 7, sect. II (2004): C4.
137
crews for LDSF is defining the optimal combination of individuals to maximize

cohesion. In addition to size, experience, and culture, an important question is what
mixture of men and women is ideal for a long-duration space mission? Preferably,
we would rely on results from empirical studies on gender and cohesion; however,
few researchers have addressed this relationship specifically, fewer still in the context of LDSF. Nevertheless, if we focus first on team performance in general, findings from the business and military domains offer some insight into the effects of
gender. For example, manufacturing teams with a larger number of women taking on informal leadership roles within the team received higher supervisor ratings
than teams with fewer female leaders.41 Likewise, as women were added to technical teams at a Fortune 500 aerospace company in a stepwise fashion, the addition
of one or two women did not adversely affect team performance in comparison to
that of all-male teams, and adding three or four women produced a slightly positive
effect on team performance.42 In contrast, some studies suggest that gender heterogeneity is problematic for teams, at least in terms of ratings of team effectiveness,
particularly when there is diversity in composition variables beyond gender, like
ethnic and cultural background. Gayle Baugh and George Graen found that members of project teams in a state regulatory agency rated their teams as less effective
when the members varied in terms of gender and race than when the team members were all male or all white. However, ratings of the teams by outside evaluators
showed no differences with regard to gender and race.43
As already described, there are few studies focused exclusively on gender and
cohesion; however, available research does suggest that the inclusion of women
on a team, at the very least, does not negatively affect cohesion and in some cases
actually improves cohesion. In a military context, arguably a better analog to spaceflight than business, a Women in Combat Task Force Study Group concluded that
41. Mitchell J. Neubert, Too Much of a Good Thing or the More the Merrier? Exploring the
Dispersion and Gender Composition of Informal Leadership in Manufacturing Teams, Small
Group Research 30, no. 5 (1995): 635646.
42. Janet W. Burris, The Impact of Gender Diversity on Technical Team Effectiveness,
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 62, no. 10-B (May
2002): 4715.
43. Gayle S. Baugh and George B. Graen, Effects of Team Gender and Racial Composition
on Perceptions of Team Performance in Cross-functional Teams, Group and Organization
Management 22, no. 3 (1997): 366383.
138
women had either a positive or a neutral effect on the type of cohesion present in
military units. This model of cohesion takes into account team factors such as interdependence, unit identity, personnel stability, communications, and leadership.44
Similarly, Robert Vecchio and Donna Brazils survey of nearly 2,000 U.S. armed services cadets indicated that increases in the number of women in a squad were not
associated with any decreases in squad-level measures of cohesion.45 In the aviation domain, an even better analog to spaceflight, the relationship between gender
and cohesion is less clear. For example, four-person teams of students from a Florida
university, flying an F-22 flight simulation, exhibited higher levels of interpersonal
cohesion when the teams were of the same gender. Furthermore, this increased
interpersonal cohesion helped to enhance coordination between team members,
leading to improved performance.46
Clearly, additional empirical investigations are warranted to more completely
define how gender heterogeneity in teams affects cohesion. In lieu of controlled
research, a tenable approach is to survey personnel from space and analog settings, although very few studies using this approach have specifically focused on
cohesion. For example, according to Rosnet and colleagues, including women in
wintering groups at polar stations seems to have positive effects on the general climate of the group by partly limiting mens rude behavior, but it also seems to be an
important stressor for both men and women when the females average age is close
to the males.47 Similarly, a former commander of the U.S. Naval Support Force
Antarctica, who had experienced both all-male winter-over missions and genderintegrated stays, reported that women had a stabilizing effect on personnel and
believed these heterogeneous groups were more productive than all-male groups.48
In space, an American woman who lived aboard the ISS reported that the crew
44. V. J. Saimons, Women in Combat: Are the Risks to Combat Effectiveness Too Great?
Monograph Report No. AD A258 247 (Fort Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army Command and
General Staff College, School of Advanced Military Studies, 1992).
45. Robert P. Vecchio and Donna M. Brazil, Leadership and Sex-Similarity: A Comparison in
a Military Setting, Personnel Psychology 60, no. 2 (2007): 303335.
46. Frederick-Jorge Panzer, The Influence of Gender and Ethnic Diversity on Team
Effectiveness, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 64, no.
3-B (2003): 1534.
47. Rosnet et al., Mixed-gender Groups: C12.
139
interacted well and achieved all mission goals.49 On the other hand, reports from
space analogs such as offshore oil rigs, naval vessels, and Antarctic bases indicate
that interpersonal problems related to mixed-gender crews had a negative effect on
crew performance.50 Stuster notes that on closer inspection, however, the problems appear to have been not directly attributable to mixed crews, but rather to the
behavioral consequences of immaturity, faulty personnel selection, and inadequate
pre-mission training for both male and female members of the crews.51
Another approach is to consider how gender heterogeneity affects factors
closely related to the development of cohesion. Recall that Bishops conclusion
after reviewing literature from extreme environments was that the presence of
women in mixed-gender crews appeared to promote crew behaviors that improved
its functioning.52 Likewise, Endlers finding that women employ a more interpersonal and caring approach when dealing with stress may significantly improve
the interpersonal atmosphere within a crew, improving interpersonal cohesion by
bringing members closer together.53
CONCLUSION
The success of future human space missions rests squarely on the shoulders
of the men and women who will venture into space for months, possibly years, at
a time. In this chapter, we argued that despite inherent differences in the behaviors and abilities of men and women, mixed-gender crews have performed effectively, both in space and in similar settings like Antarctica. In most cases, teams
composed of both men and women function as well as or better than all-male
teams. We also supported the conclusion that crew interactions, specifically the
level of cohesion within the crew, are extremely important to the crews overall
performance. Available evidence, albeit limited in scope and size, indicates that
49. Kanas and Manzey, Space Psychology and Psychiatry, p. 77.

51. Ibid.
52. Bishop, Evaluating Teams in Extreme Environments: C17.
53. Endler, The Joint Effects of Person and Situation Factors: C25.
140
gender-homogenous crews exhibit similar, and at times higher, levels of cohesion

than gender-heterogeneous crews in settings similar to spaceflight.
In this chapter, we concentrated on just one piece of this puzzle related to the
gender composition of the crew and how the mixture of men and women affects
the crews task and interpersonal cohesion. Our conclusion, based on available
research from space, space analogs, and other team-related activities, is that a crew
composed of both women and men is the right choice for extended missions to the
International Space Station, rendezvous missions with asteroids, and, one day, the
first human mission to Mars.
141
Chapter 7
Flying with Strangers: Postmission Reflections of

Multinational Space Crews
Peter Suedfeld1
University of British Columbia
Kasia E. Wilk
Youth Forensic Psychiatric Services Research and Evaluation Department
Ministry of Children and Family Development
Lindi Cassel
Department of Occupational Therapy
Providence Health Care
ABSTRACT
After the Space Age began as part of the national rivalry between the USSR
and the United States, space exploration gradually took on a multinational character as both countries included astronauts from their respective allies, and eventually from each other, in their missions. This trend became institutionalized in the
Shuttle-Mir program and in the construction of the International Space Station
(ISS). The latter is the first truly international, as opposed to multinational, space
capsule, in that it does not belong to and was not built by one country. In previous
cases, one national space agency was always the host and crewmembers from other
nations were perceived and treated as guests. This guest status, which usually
1. This research was made possible by Contract No. 9F007-033006 with the Canadian Space
Agency and is part of the project Long-term Effects After Prolonged Spaceflight (LEAPS).
A briefer version of the chapter was presented at the meeting of the American Psychological
Association in San Francisco, CA, in August 2007. Correspondence should be addressed to
Peter Suedfeld, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
V6T 1Z4, Canada, or psuedfeld@psych.ubc.ca.
143
went with being a minority among a majority from the host nation, led to considerable dissatisfaction and frustration.
This chapter examines the archived reminiscences of both majority and
minority astronauts and cosmonauts, relying primarily on the method of Thematic
Content Analysis (TCA). TCA is a set of techniques whereby trained scorers identify and quantify specific variables in narratives. In this study, TCA procedures were
used to analyze how majority-minority status and other variables (e.g., gender, mission duration, and Space Age era) affected satisfaction, feelings about crewmates
and home agencies, personal values, ways of coping with problems, and other psychosocial reactions of the mission participants. The study drew upon astronauts
and cosmonauts memoirs, autobiographies, media interviews, and oral history
interviews as the databases on which TCA scoring was performed.
N AT I O N A L I S T I C E M B O D I M E N T S O F A
UNIVERSAL HUMAN DRIVE
The exploration of space may be attributed to two driving forces. One is an

innate drive shared by many species but perhaps best exemplified by humanity: the
urge to seek novelty, to enlarge the sphere of the known as we advance into the
hitherto unknown, and to expand the habitat of humankind.2 Long before technology made real space voyages possible, fictional explorations can be traced to the
myth of Daedalus and Icarus and its counterparts in other traditions, to the writings of Cyrano de Bergerac, and eventually to the imaginations of Jules Verne and
the multitude of early-20th-century science fiction writers.
The second motivator, which determined just when in our species history
space travel would move from fiction to reality, was international rivalry. Primitive
military rocketry began centuries ago, accelerated and took the first large steps
toward space during World War II, and was increasingly well supported and brought
to eventual fruition as the space race component of the Cold War.
2. M. Holquist, The Philosophical Bases of Soviet Space Exploration, The Key Reporter 51,
no. 2 (winter 198586): 24.
144
Flying with Strangers: Postmission Reflections of Multinational Space Crews
The first decades of human spaceflight were a series of competitions between

the Soviet Union and the United States: who would be the first to launch an
orbiting spacecraft, a piloted spacecraft, a space crew, a Moon rocket, a space station.... Flights were scheduled to preempt media publicity from the competition.
Temporary victory veered from one bloc to the other, with each claimingor at
least implyingthat being momentarily ahead in the race was proof of the superiority of its political and economic system, just as Olympic gold medals were (and
are) risibly interpreted as markers of national quality.
In such a setting, it followed logically that cooperation between the two leading space nations would be unlikely. The original space travelers were exemplars
of the virtues each country extolled: they were military pilots, the cream of that
already hand-picked crop, who were used to flying experimental and operational
aircraft at the very edge of new technology, individuals of demonstrated courage,
coolness, and ability. The world was shown that they were all physically fit, psychologically stable, good husbands and fathers, modest, humorous, and loyal. They
were patriotic citizens and, depending on which program they were in, strong supporters of either communism or democratic capitalism. Although these portraits
omitted a number of what would have been more realistic, if less rosy, individual
differences among these pioneers, both space agencies continued to paint such idealized pictures, and the spacemen did their best not to smear the paint (although
later in the Space Age, revisionists have tried to rub off some of its luster by emphasizing the internal politics of the agencies, alleging arbitrary and biased decisions
being made concerning the assignment of astronauts, and so on).3 More recently,
selection procedures have changed to reflect the expanded sources and duties of
astronauts, to include civilians, nonpilots, women, and a variety of (mostly, but not
entirely, technical and scientific) professionals; but there is a perception that some
kinds of bias still existe.g., in favor of astronauts from the military.4
It is worth remembering that the combination of the universal urge to explore
and the particularistic urge to use exploration to exalt ones nation is neither new
nor unique to space explorers. For centuries, it has been a prominent reason why
3.
B. Burrough, Dragonfly: NASA and the Crisis Aboard Mir (New York: HarperCollins, 1998).
4. M. Mullane, Riding Rockets: The Outrageous Tales of a Space Shuttle Astronaut (New York:
Scribner, 2006).
145
terrestrial expeditions were funded and also a strong component of many expeditioners motivation.5
G U E S T R O O M S I N S PA C E
In 1975, the two rivals cooperated to design a docking module that allowed
spacecraft from each (Apollo and Soyuz) to join in space. Later, both superpowers
began to offer room and board in their space capsules to citizens of their respective
international blocs. The Soviet Interkosmos program made room for cosmonauts
from various Eastern Bloc countries, as well as from France, Syria, and India;
American crews have shared their spacecraft with colleagues from Canada, Western
Europe, Australia, Japan, India, Israel, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia.
This trend was reinforced by the establishment of space agencies in countries
that could select and train astronauts but had no independent crewed space vehicles. The most active among these are Canada, Germany, France (and eventually
the European Union [EU]), and Japan. The Peoples Republic of China has since
gone beyond such strategies to develop its own launch vehicles and begin an independent program of piloted spaceflight. Eventually, multinationality became routine, as did the inclusion of women and the broadening of selection to allow for the
participation of people who were not military, not test pilots, and often not even
pilots. The new participants were from a range of disciplines: engineers, scientists,
physicians, politicians, and, most recently, private individuals who bought a brief
stay on theISS.
This major increase in the diversity of space voyagers sharpens a distinction
that began when the USSR and the United States first added foreign crewmembers. Differences, sometimes invidious, were not only between nationalities per se,
but also between the host crew of Americans or Soviets/Russians and the visitors. At first, the inclusion of international crewmembers was primarily a propaganda move. It had relatively little beneficial effect on the missions themselves
and angered the established astronaut and cosmonaut corps by reducing the flight
5. J. R. L. Anderson, The Ulysses Factor: The Exploring Instinct in Man (New York: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, 1970).
146
opportunities of their members.6 Until the construction of the ISS, every capsule
that carried human beings into space was either American or Soviet/Russian. Was
it possible that mixed-nationality crews aboard felt equally at home and comfortable, or was a host-guest distinction unavoidable? Would the latter be strengthened by the fact that some of the home team inhabited the vehicle for a much
longer period than did the foreign visitors? Could the distinction be eliminated, or
at least minimized, by appropriate training and crew composition? And what did
the answers to these questions imply for truly international efforts, such as building
and working on the ISS, and perhaps the eventual exploration of space beyond lowEarth orbit and the Moon? This chapter presents data that address some, though
not all, of these questions.
There has been considerable evidence that psychosocial stressors are among the
most important impediments to optimal crew morale and performance.7 Positive
reactions during and after spaceflight were relatively ignored as psychologists
focused on problems that needed to be avoided or solved. After a somewhat slow
start toward balancing the situation, attention to positive aspects has expanded in
the past few years to look at eustress (positive stress), personal growth, excitement,
enjoyment, feelings of satisfaction, camaraderie, and changes in values.8
6. T. Furniss and D. J. Shayler, with M. D. Shayler, Praxis Manned Spaceflight Log, 19612006
(Chichester, U.K.: Springer Praxis, 2007); Mullane, Riding Rockets.
7. N. Kanas and D. Manzey, Space Psychology and Psychiatry (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer,
2003); Space Studies Board, A Strategy for Research in Space Biology and Medicine in the New
Century (Washington, DC: National Research Council, 1998); J. Stuster, Bold Endeavors:
Lessons from Space and Polar Exploration (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1996);
P.Suedfeld, Applying Positive Psychology in the Study of Extreme Environments, Journal of
Human Performance in Extreme Environments 6 (2001): 2125; P. Suedfeld, Space Memoirs:
Value Hierarchies Before and After MissionsA Pilot Study, Acta Astronautica 58 (2006):
583586.
8. Suedfeld, Applying Positive Psychology: 2125; E. C. Ihle, J. B. Ritsher, and N.Kanas,
Positive Psychological Outcomes of Spaceflight: An Empirical Study, Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine 77 (2006): 93102; A. D. Kelly and N. Kanas, Communication
Between Space Crews and Ground Personnel: A Survey of Astronauts and Cosmonauts,
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 9 (1993): 795800; P. Suedfeld, Invulnerability,
Coping, Salutogenesis, Integration: Four Phases of Space Psychology, Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine 76 (2005): B61B66; Suedfeld, Space Memoirs: 583586; P. Suedfeld
and G. D. Steel, The Environmental Psychology of Capsule Habitats, Annual Review of
Psychology 51 (2000): 227253.
147
It has been pointed out that mixed crews are mixed in many different ways.
Intercultural issues can arise, and have arisen, not only between space voyagers of
different nationalities, but also between those of different space agencies, sexes,
and educational and professional backgrounds. Crewmembers who came to space
with a military test pilot background and those with an academic science background may have problems understanding each others jargon and worldview (to
say nothing of those of teachers and politicians). The same, to an even greater
extent, is likely to be true in international crews that are not perfectly bilingual.9
However, the current chapter focuses on only one kind of diversity, that based
on nationality.
Whether the possible benefits of increased diversity in crew composition
(such as reducing boredom, celebrating unaccustomed holidays, and becoming
acquainted with new and useful approaches to interpersonal and operational problems) will outweigh the additional stresses that it generates, or vice versa, needs
to be assessed through empirical data. To date, there have been three sources of
relevant information. One advantage that they all share, which sets them off from
simulation and analog studies, is their high external validity: the information is
produced by real participants in real space operations. This is the only kind of
information that will be considered here.
The most colorful and memorable, but least generalizable and scientifically
rigorous, source is the collection of anecdotes that has been generated by the
space voyagers and others involved in the programs. Self-report studies using surveys and interviews have provided both qualitative and some quantitative information, usually from a relatively small number of crewmembers during a mission
and occasionally from larger samples of ground staff personnel. Thematic content
analyses applied to interviews, memoirs, and similar archival materials provide
another form of quantitative analysis applied to qualitative materials. This is the
method used in the current chapter.
9. Kelly and Kanas, Communication Between Space Crews and Ground Personnel: 795
800; P. Kumar, Intercultural Interactions Among Long-Duration Spaceflight Crew (LDSF)
(paper presented at the International Astronautical Congress, Hyderabad, India, September
2007).
148
MY HOUSE OR JOINT TENANCY?

Anecdotal Evidence
As in much of space psychology, and more generally in the psychology of all

extreme and unusual environments, the first bits of knowledge came from the anecdotes told and written down by participants. These stories have tended to emphasize
the dramatic, and therefore mostly unpleasant, interactions between crewmembers
of different demographic (including national/cultural) categories. It should be noted
that most of them are common currency in the space community; the references
given are only examples of several sources in which these stories have appeared.
The kind of diversity with which this paper is concerned, that is, differences
in national origin, has been the topic of many anecdotal reports. Some of the best
known involve visitors to Soviet capsules. When the first Interkosmos cosmonaut,
Vladimir Remek of Czechoslovakia, returned from space (Soyuz 28, 1978), the joke
went around that he was suffering from red hand syndrome: every time he reached
for a switch or other control, a Russian crewmate would slap his hand and tell him
not to touch it.10
Four years later, Jean-Loup Chrtien, a French air force officer and the first of a series
of French cosmonauts, was likewise forbidden to touch anything during his crew training with two Russians; he not-so-subtly communicated his frustration (and annoyed
his crew commander) by bringing a pillow and going to sleep during one training session. After the inhospitable commander was replaced and Chrtien reached the Salyut
space station for a one-week visit, his expertise, good nature, and sophisticated equipment impressed the Russiansbut one of them later expressed his relief at going back
to black bread and borscht after a menu of canned French delicacies, including compote of pigeon with dates and dried raisins, duck with artichokes, boeuf bourguignon,
and more.11 Chrtien, in turn, criticized the excessive workload imposed on the crew.12
10. V. Lebedev, 1990, cited in R. Zimmerman, Leaving Earth: Space Stations, Rival Superpowers,
and the Quest for Interplanetary Travel (Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 2003), p. 134.
11. V. Lebedev, Diary of a Cosmonaut: 211 Days in Space (New York: Bantam Books, 1990;
original publication, 1983); Surprise! Astronauts Eat in Orbit, Space Today Online, http://
www.spacetoday.org/SpcShtls/AstronautsEat.html (accessed 14 March 2008).
12. R. D. Hall, D. J. Shayler, and B. Vis, Russias Cosmonauts: Inside the Yuri Gagarin Training
Center (Chichester, U.K.: Springer Praxis, 2005), pp. 235236.
149
The long-duration deployments to the Salyut and Mir space stations included the
presence of mixed crews, and the Shuttle-Mir mission series was in fact designed for
such crews. Each of the latter missions was constructed around an American-Russian
team flying to Mir aboard a Space Shuttle orbiter and remaining on the station (with
occasional crew changes and short-term visitors) for between four and seven months.
The reluctance of Russian hosts to admit their guests to full coworker status
persisted during this collaborative program. In 1995, Norman Thagard was the first
American to be a long-term crewmember on the Mir space station. Despite his status
as a full resident, rather than a short-term visitor like Remek and Chrtien, Thagard,
like them, felt that he was left out of important and interesting activities on the aging
and deteriorating spacecraft. He wound up doing crossword puzzles while his crewmates did the work. Shannon Lucid, who spent six seemingly happy months on Mir
in 1996, was left in command of the station while her two Russian colleagues performed EVAs; however, the control switches were taped down, and she was told not
to touch anything.13 In an oral history interview, one NASA psychologist said, We
were never able, I dont think, to have the American be on par with the Russian
crew members....14 The problem may not be restricted to the astronauts. Thagard
and other Shuttle-Mir astronauts indicated that more vigorous support from NASA
ground personnel in Mission Control in Russia might have ameliorated these problemsbut those personnel in turn felt themselves to be tense, unhappy, underutilized,
and somewhat ignored by their own Russian counterparts.15
13. S. Lucid, Six Months on Mir, Scientific American (May 1988): 4655; Zimmerman,
Leaving Earth.
14. Al Holland, interview by Rebecca Wright, Frank Tarazona, and Summer Bergen, 13
August 1998, published through Shuttle-Mir Oral History Project, Johnson Space Center
History Portal, available at http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/participants.htm
(accessed 7 June 2010).
15. J. M. Linenger, Off the Planet: Surviving Five Perilous Months Aboard the Space Station Mir
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000); Norman E. Thagard, interview by Rebecca Wright, Paul
Rollins, and Carol Butler, 16 September 1998, published through Shuttle-Mir Oral History
Project, Johnson Space Center History Portal, available at http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/
oral_histories/participants.htm (accessed 5 May 2007); Zimmerman, Leaving Earth; N. Kanas,
V.Salnitskiy, E. M. Grund, et al., Interpersonal and Cultural Issues Involving Crews and
Ground Personnel During Shuttle/Mir Space Missions, Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine 71, no. 9 (2000): A11A16.
150
Even those astronauts who were given work to do could wind up with menial or
routine jobs.16 David Wolf, a Shuttle-Mir resident astronaut, volunteered to clean
gooey, slimy, ice-cold fluid from the stations walls, a job that then devolved on
him for 4 to 8 hours per day, almost every day, while his Russian colleagues performed sophisticated technical work. Wolf accepted this with equanimity: that was
the best thing I could come up with to free up their time for what theyre better at
and be part of the team.17
The critical attitude toward people perceived to be not-quite-colleagues was
not restricted to the Russian space program. Mike Mullane, referring to part-time
astronautsone-flight foreign visitors, payload specialists, politicians, and the
likeasserts that their training had been cursory and superficial, that some of them
exhibited psychological problems, and that Mission commanders provided their
own additional training in the form of the admonishment Dont touch any shuttle
switches!18 Obviously, part-time astronauts were seen as less expert and therefore undependable. J. M. Linenger, too, comments negatively on his and colleagues
attitude toward American part-time astronauts.19
Of course, this should not have applied to people such as Remek, Thagard,
and Lucid. They and many others who flew as national minorities were in fact professional astronauts. They were just as well trained as the national majority with
whom they flew, and in many cases, they trained together with the majority for a
year or more. The comments of majority crewmembers are typically quite positive
about their foreign colleagues personality and ability to get along with the rest of
the crew, but the distrust in their competence within the home teams spacecraft
(and/or with the home teams language) persisted nonetheless.20
16. N. Kanas, V. P. Salnitskiy, E. M. Grund, V. I. Gushin, D. S. Weiss, O. Kozerenko, A. Sled,

and C. R. Marmar, Social and Cultural Issues During Space Missions, Acta Astronautica 47
(2000): 647655.
17. David Wolf, interview by Rebecca Wright, Paul Rollins, and Mark Davison, 23 June 1998,
Shuttle-Mir Oral History Project, Johnson Space Center History Portal, available at http://
www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/participants.htm (accessed 7 June 2010).
18. Mullane, Riding Rockets.
19. Linenger, Off the Planet.
20. N. Thagard, interview with the Panel on Human Behavior, Space Studies Board, National
Research Council, Washington, DC, 2 May 1997.
151
These and similar stories may not be representative of the general experiences
of national minorities in a space crew. Many of these individuals recollections were
primarily positive. Nevertheless, the negatively toned anecdotes point out, even if
they may overemphasize, problems of which planners should be aware.
To some extent, friction between majority and minority crewmembers may arise
from differences in the home cultures of the two most populous groups, Russians
(including citizens of the former USSR) and Americans. J. B. Ritsher, in an excellent summary of the relevant cultural differences between these two nations, cites
research not only from space but also from aviation and from psychological, sociological, and anthropological studies more generally.21 According to these studies,
Russian culture values collectivism, hierarchical power, distance, and paternalism
more than American culture and values individualism, egalitarianism, mastery,
autonomy, and uncertainty less. In addition, the USSR was oriented more toward
survival and less toward well-being.
On a number of dimensions, including the ones listed above, Russia is discrepant from all of the other nations involved in the International Space Station
project. Russian and American approaches to spaceflight differ in significant ways,
some of these reflecting the more general cultural differences discussed by Ritsher.
Supporting the view that Russian culture is more hierarchical than American culture were perceptions that Russian mission commanders were more authoritarian,
Russian communications were more structured and formal (at least in English translation), and Russians were more circumspect in criticizing mission control or the
systems on the spacecraft.22
Perhaps because of differences in the national economies and the funding of
the space agencies, cosmonauts were more likely to feel that they had to try to
repair malfunctioning systems, whereas astronauts tended to discard and replace
them. Russians consequently were more satisfied with systems that worked adequately rather than demanding that they work perfectly. On a more personal level,
cosmonauts (unlike astronauts) are paid a large spaceflight bonus, with deductions
based on how many of the preset goals (experiments, repairs, extravehicular activities, etc.) they fail to complete successfully during the mission. As a result, their
21. J. B. Ritsher, Cultural Factors and the International Space Station, Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine 76 (2005): 135144.
22. Kumar, Intercultural Interactions.
152
foreign colleagues sometimes considered them to be reluctant to do work that was

not within the pay-for-action agreement and to do anything that might foil the
completion of an agreed-upon paid task.23
Although it is certainly likely that cultural root causes (especially those stemming from differences between Russian and Western cultures) may underlie some of
the frictions between majority and minority crewmembers, the host-guest dichotomy may have caused more problems than cultural or national diversity per se. If
so, a completely different picture may emerge within a truly international facility
such as the ISS when it becomes fully operational.
There is another possible explanation. Valentin Lebedev, a long-duration Mir
cosmonaut, recognized a difference between his reactions to foreign and to compatriot visitors. Concerning one of the former, he wrote, Its nice to have guests,
but they make you tired, even though most of his comments about his French colleague were positive; commenting on an upcoming visit by fellow Russian cosmonauts, he wrote, I think it will be easier with this visiting crew; they wont disturb
us as much ... .24 It may be that it is not nationality but familiarity that makes a
visitor more welcome, so that more extensive pre-mission training and joint activities might erase or at least diminish the invidious difference.
Self-Report Studies
Kanas and Manzey summarized the few studies using self-report measures by
space voyagers who had flown in foreign company.25 Although there have been several simulation and analog studies (respectively, group isolation experiments in specially designed settings and field studies in isolated areas such as the polar regions
and undersea habitats), data from actual spaceflight are scarce. Participants have
reported miscommunications due to both spoken and nonverbal interaction styles,
abrasive differences in leadership decision-making, differences in work patterns,
23. Ibid.
24. Lebedev, Diary of a Cosmonaut, pp. 101 and 189, respectively.
25. Kanas and Manzey, Space Psychology and Psychiatry.
153
different standards of hygiene and food preparation, and personality clashes that
may be related to cultural factors.
Kanas and his colleagues have conducted major studies of space crews in flight
by administering standard questionnaires that crewmembers can complete on a
computer while the mission is going on. One such study, of crewmembers on Mir
(five Americans and eight Russians) and the ISS (eight and nine, respectively),
found that cosmonauts on Mir experienced more direction, support from the leader,
and self-discovery than astronauts; lower vigor and more tension and anxiety on
the ISS; and less job pressure but higher task orientation and managerial control in
both places.26 Americans on the Russian station felt less comfortable and less well
supported from the ground than did the home team. In contrast, ISS procedures
are more U.S.-influenced, which may have made the Russians feel that they were
on unfamiliar territory. Another report on the same Shuttle-Mir crews found that
during the second half of the mission, Russian crewmembers reported decreasing
cohesion and work pressure compared to Americans.27
A more recent study reported that miscommunications abounded when members of international crews engaged in extravehicular activities, but not when all
crewmembers were from the same country, and that besides the obvious language
barrier, space fliers generally felt that coming from the same cultural background
would also reduce interpersonal friction.28 Most of those interviewed agreed that
on long-duration missions, they would prefer to go with a homogeneous crew from
their own culture. In fact, according to Linenger, many U.S. astronauts declined
the opportunity to participate in the Shuttle-Mir program for reasons that included
distrust of Russian technology and postCold War hostility toward Russians themselves. Some of those who did agree to join the program were so dissatisfied with the
training they got in Russia that they threatened to quita near mutiny.29
26. N. Kanas, V. P. Salnitskiy, J. B. Ritsher, V. I. Gushin, D. S. Weiss, S. A. Saylor, O.P.

Kozerenko, and C. R. Marmar, Human Interactions in Space: ISS vs. Shuttle/Mir (paper
IAC-05-A1.5.02, presented at the International Astronautical Congress, Fukuoka, Japan,
October 2005).
27. N. Kanas, V. P. Salnitskiy, D. S. Weiss, E. M. Grund, V. I. Gushin, O. Kozerenko, A.Sled,
A.Bosrom, and C. R. Marmar, Crewmember and Ground Personnel Interactions over Time During
Shuttle/Mir Space Missions, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 72 (2001): 453461.
28. Kumar, Intercultural Interactions.
29. Linenger, Off the Planet, p. 45.
154
T H E C U R R E N T S T U D Y:
T H E M AT I C C O N T E N T A N A LY S I S
Content analysis is a research method used in many disciplines to study narratives of interest. For example, anthropologists may content-analyze myths or folktales to identify important issues or beliefs of a culture; literary scholars may find
in novels or plays the dominant patterns of social relations in a particular time or
place, or hints as to the childhood experiences and personality of an author. Such
qualitative or impressionistic methods are frequently used to explore hypotheses
derived from a particular theory such as psychoanalysis, Marxism, or postmodernism. The scholar finds examples in the material that are relevant to the theory and
uses those examples as evidence, as in Freuds inferences about Leonardo da Vincis
family background, childhood, and personality, based primarily on the analysis of a
dream that Leonardo recorded in his diary.30
A purely quantitative counterpart is computerized content analysis, in which
the occurrence of certain kinds of words or phrases is counted and used to infer
either historical or personal characteristics. For example, a frequent appearance
of the word I may indicate a degree of self-confidence, independence, or narcissism; hostile terminology (enemy, threatening, evil) reveals a bellicose emotional or cultural state: an increase in such words when referring to another person
or country may be one indicator of a forthcoming confrontation.31
The method used in our study, Thematic Content Analysis (TCA), is different from both the qualitative or impressionistic approaches and purely quantitative
computerized ones. In TCA, either all available material or a randomly selected
subset is used so that the researchers theoretical preconceptions cannot bias the
selection of material to be analyzed; identifying information is removed as far as
possible, as a safeguard against bias in the actual scoring; and the material is scored
blindly by a qualified scorer using a detailed scoring manual to further reduce the
chances of bias and of idiosyncratic scoring criteria. Generally, at least one other
30. S. Freud, Leonardo da Vinci and a Memory of his Childhood (New York: Norton, 1961;
original publication, 1910).
31. R. C. North, O. R. Holsti, M. G. Zaninovich, and D. A. Zinnes, Content Analysis: A
Handbook with Applications for the Study of International Crisis (Evanston, IL: Northwestern
155
scorer analyzes a percentage of the same passages to ensure interscorer reliability.

Thus, from a qualitative (e.g., narrative) database, quantitative data are generated
in a scientifically rigorous way and statistical analyses are made possible.32
The issue of accuracy always arises in retrospective materials, usually from two
perspectives. One is the exactness of memory; the other is the possibility of impression management. In the current study, precision probably varied as a function of
time since the experience (among other variables), which itself varied from very
little, as in the Life magazine interviews of the first Mercury astronauts, to years in
the case of book-length memoirs. In any case, the question of how precisely the
narrators remembered events is not of critical importance to this study: we were
not interested in compiling a history of their experiences, but rather in the emotions and motives that were associated with the events and that emerged during
recall. As for impression management, although this is a likely mediating variable in any self-descriptive human narrative, the TCA scoring criteria are not very
transparent, and the material includes a number of cross-checks (e.g., prepared versus spontaneous remarks). Many of the narratives included negative reflections on
both other people and the narrator himself (or herself), and stories by several participants in the same event showed substantial differences, so at least the attempt
to make oneself (or ones colleagues or ones agency) look good did not swamp all
other considerations, and there was no evidence of externally imposed uniformity
in the accounts.
Method
The current study applied TCA scoring methods to a collection of memoirs,

interviews, and oral histories originated by 63 astronauts and cosmonauts. The
overwhelming majority of U.S. and Soviet/Russian participants were in the categories that NASA considers professional astronauts: pilots and mission specialists. The few exceptions were spaceflight participants: individuals flown for some
goal such as public relations. No space tourists (i.e., individuals who were allowed
32. C. P. Smith, J. W. Atkinson, and D. C. McClelland, eds. Motivation and Personality:

Handbook of Thematic Content Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
156
to fly for a brief visit to the ISS upon payment of a multi-million-dollar fee) were
included; neither were payload specialists, who fly as members of nongovernmental
institutions such as corporations or universities to carry out a specific task or experiment. Participants from countries other than the United States and the USSR/
Russia were a more mixed group, which included both professional astronauts and
others (many of them professional air force officers) who, after their one spaceflight,
would have no long-term connection with a space program.
The collections covered the era of human spaceflight from the very first period
through the construction of the ISS, but we omitted reports related to missions in
which crews of only one nation were involved. Due to the extremely small sample
available from ISS veterans, we also omitted those data from our analyses. With the
increasing number of crewmembers who have served on the Station, this problem
may be on the way to being solved.
Because the source materials of this study varied widely in length, all TCA
results reported below are based on number of category mentions per page in the
source. Not every subject had references to all of the dependent variables, so ns
(sample sizes within each subcategory) varied from measure to measure.
Anecdotes and a numerical content analysis software program were used as secondary data.
Independent Variables
Table 1 shows the breakdown of the subjects by relevant demographic and

spaceflight categories, which served as the independent variables. National origin refers to the country with which the source was identified in the space program. For example, some U.S. astronauts were originally immigrants from
elsewhere; however, they were selected, trained, and chosen to fly by NASA.
USSR/Russia includes cosmonauts whose citizenship was Soviet during the existence of the USSR and those who were Russian afterward. The Other category
includes astronauts who had been recruited and selected by the established space
programs of other nations (e.g., Canada or Japan, as well as France, Germany, or
other EU nations) and who flew with either the U.S. or the Soviet/Russian space
program. Interkosmos crewmembers and their equivalents flying with NASA are
also classified as Other.
157
Table 1. Number of subjects by category.

Sex
Flew as
Flew with
National Origin Male Female Minority Majority U.S.

16
10
7
19
20
U.S.
USSR/Russia
6
USSR/Russia
14
10
Other*
19
23
19
Total
49
14
34
29
45
18
* Other refers to crewmembers who are neither American nor Soviet/Russian. All of the
subjects in this category flew as a minority with either American or Russian majorities.
In addition to these analyses, others were performed on disaggregations based

on mission duration (two weeks or less versus either four or six months or more)
and mission phase (portions of the narrative referring to pre-, in-, or postflight periods). In some instances, the n within one of these cells was too small for analysis,
and those scores are omitted from this report.
Dependent Variables
The scoring categories applied to the materials were as follows:

1. Value hierarchies: S.H. Schwartz defined values as having five major aspects.
According to him, values
1. are concepts or beliefs,
2. pertain to desirable end states of behaviors,
3. transcend specific situations,
4. guide selection or evaluation of behavior and events, and
5. are ordered by relative importance.33
Eventually, Schwartz reported that 11 categories of values underlying stable,
important life goals (see table 2) had been empirically shown to have cross-cultural
generality and high reliability.
33. S. H. Schwartz, Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances
and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25 (1992): 4.
158
Table 2. Value categories and definitions (alphabetical order).*

Value
Brief Definition
Achievement
Personal success through demonstrated competence according to

social standards
Benevolence
Concern for close others in everyday interaction
Conformity
Inhibition of socially disruptive acts, impulses, or inclinations
Hedonism
Pleasure in satisfying organismic needs
Power
Social prestige/status, control over people and resources
Security
Safety, harmony, stability of society, relationships, and self
Self-Direction
Independent thought and action: choosing, creating, exploring
Spirituality
Meaning and harmony by transcending everyday reality
Stimulation
Excitement, novelty, challenge
Tradition
Respect for ones cultural/religious customs and ideas
Universalism
Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection of the

welfare of all people and of nature
* Adapted from Schwartz, Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: 512.
One way to group the values is to distinguish between those that serve individual interests and those that serve collective interests: Achievement, Hedonism, and
Self-Direction versus Conformity, Security, and Tradition. The emphasis on individual versus collective cultural values is generally thought to separate American
and Soviet cultures; a comparison between the two groups of values across the fliers representing the two national space agencies can be an interesting way to check
on this widespread view.
The value scores reported in the current paper reflect the number of times the
source person mentioned experiencing, advancing, or identifying with values in
that category per page or section of text in the source material.
159
his or her crewmates,

his or her own space agency,
the space agency in charge of the mission,
his or her own family, and
people in general.

34. J. R. McKay, Affiliative Trust-Mistrust, in Motivation and Personality: Handbook of

Thematic Content Analysis, ed. Smith, Atkinson, and McClelland, pp. 254265.
35. D. P. McAdams, Scoring Manual for the Intimacy Motive, Psychological Documents, vol.
2613 (San Rafael, CA: Select Press, 1984).
36. S. Folkman, R. S. Lazarus, C. Dunkel-Schetter, A. DeLongis, and R. Gruen, Dynamics
of a Stressful Encounter: Cognitive Appraisal, Coping, and Encounter Outcomes, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 50 (1986): 9921003.
37. P. Suedfeld, R. Krell, R. Wiebe, and G. D. Steel, Coping Strategies in the Narratives of
Holocaust Survivors, Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 10 (1997): 153179.
160
Table 3. Coping categories and definitions.

Coping Category
Definition
Effort to resolve situation through assertive or aggressive
1. Confrontation
interaction with another person
2.
Distancing
Effort to detach oneself emotionally from the situation
3.
Self-Control
Effort to regulate ones own feelings or actions
4.
Accept
Responsibility
Acknowledging that one has a role in the problem
5.
Escape/Avoidance
Efforts to escape or avoid the problem physically
6.
Planful
Problem-Solving
Deliberate (rational, cognitively oriented) effort to

change or escape the situation
7.
Positive Reappraisal
Effort to see a positive meaning in the situation
8.
Seeking Social
Support
Effort to obtain sympathy, help, information, or

emotional support from another person or persons
9.
Endurance/
Obedience/Effort
Trying to persevere, survive, submit, or comply with

demands
10. Compartmentalization Encapsulating the problem psychologically so as to

isolate it from other aspects of life
11. Denial
Ignoring the problem, not believing in its reality
12. Supernatural
Protection
Invocation of religious or superstitious practices; efforts to gain

such protection (e.g., prayer, amulets); reliance on luck, fate
Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC).38 LIWC is a word-count software

application that identifies a variety of affective/emotional, cognitive, sensory/perceptual, and social processes, as well as references to personal space and orientation, motion, work, leisure, financial and metaphysical issues, and physical states.
Because computer analysis is subject to many problems such as ignoring context
and being restricted to those words and phrases that had been entered in the software dictionary, this was considered a secondary methodology in the current study.
38. J. W. Pennebaker, M. E. Francis, and R. J. Booth, Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count
(LIWC): LIWC 2001 (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2001).
161
Results
We want to emphasize that the findings reported here concentrate on the

impact of status as a member of the national majority or a minority within a space
crew. Main effect differences as a function of minority-majority status based on
characteristics other than nationality (e.g., gender, occupation, or job category on
a space mission) are not reported.
In the findings described below, all cited differences were significant at p=.05
or better unless otherwise specified.
Value Hierarchies
all categories, Russians mentioned Achievement the most often. Americans ranked
the highest on both values when flying in minority status, but Russians ranked highest
when they were in the majority (see figure 1). With regard to Conformity, Americans
were high when they were in the minority but low in the majority; Russians were the
opposite (see figure 2).
Minorities and majorities also differed significantly as a function of flight duration. When discussing in-flight periods lasting over four months, minorities emphasized Security more than majorities: the reverse was true for short (less than two
weeks) missions.
Of the 18 minority astronauts who made references to values while they were in
space, 8 flew with predominantly American crews and 10 with Russian crews. Those
who flew with the Americans showed significantly less Hedonism, Self-Direction,
Conformity, and Security than those who flew with the Russians. Comparing minorities and majorities flying in American or Russian crews, we found an interaction:
non-Americans flying with NASA mentioned Universalism more frequently than
162
Figure 1. Differences in Achievement value during spaceflight.
Figure 2. Differences in Conformity value during spaceflight.
163
Table 4. Phase- and status-related changes (mean value scores).

Mission Phase
Value
Status
Majority
Power
Minority
Achievement Majority
Minority
Self-Direction Majority
Minority
Preflight
.08
.11
.76
.46
.26
.31
In-flight
.06
.05
.47
.21
.17
.10
Postflight
.23
.29
.47
.29
.23
.21
did their American colleagues; minorities flying with Interkosmos mentioned it less
frequently than Russians in their own spacecraft.
Value Change
In general, all value references decrease when the source is discussing the
period of his or her flight and mostly move back toward or above preflight baselines
in descriptions of the postflight period. There were three significant phase-related
value changes among the 17 minority and 15 majority crewmembers for whom we
had complete data across the three mission phases (see table 4).
For minority sources only, significant changes over the three phases were found:
increasing references to Spirituality and Hedonism between the in-flight and postflight phases, as well as decreasing references to Stimulation and Conformity over
the three phases (see figure 3). For majorities, none of the changes was significant.
There were no significant interactions of gender and status or nationality and
status with regard to value change over time, nor were there significant national
differences in individual- versus collective-oriented values.
Social Relations
There were four separate, although correlated, measures within this category:
Trust, Mistrust, Positive Intimacy, and Negative Intimacy.
164
Figure 3. Minority value changes by mission phase.
1. Majorities versus minorities: Minority or majority status made a significant

difference in the social relations references: minorities were more mistrustful and more negative about intimacy than majorities. There were no reliable overall differences and no interaction effects on the basis of gender or
the nationality of crewmates. References to relations between the source and
his or her family members were more positive in both subcategories when the
source flew with a foreign majority. Minority astronauts showed more Negative
Intimacy references toward their own space agency and showed more Mistrust
toward the foreign home agency of their majority colleagues.
There were no majority-minority differences in either positive or negative
orientation toward astronauts fellow crewmembers; these comments were predominantly positive (high Trust and Positive Intimacy). The same was true of
references to other people in general. Minorities who flew in Russian spacecraft mentioned both positive and negative social relations (Trust and Mistrust,
Positive and Negative Intimacy) more frequently than those who flew with
American majorities, although only the difference in Trust reached the p=.05
level of significance.
2. Mission duration: Regardless of status, long-duration crewmembers made more
references to Mistrust than those on shorter missions. Majorities had higher
165
Figure 4. Coping strategies by minority-majority status.
Mistrust and higher Negative Intimacy scores than minorities when discussing short missions, but minorities on long missions were more negative than
their hosts.
3. Mission phase: Disaggregating minority and majority crewmembers, we
found that both decreased in Trust from the pre- to the postflight portion of
their narrative, but the drop was marginally (p=.08) steeper among minorities. On Mistrust, majorities remained stable while minorities showed a dramatic increase, especially from the in-flight to the postflight stages. There
was also a marginal (p=.07) interaction effect on Negative Intimacy, with
minorities showing a steep increase (again, especially from in- to postflight),
while majorities started out much higher in the preflight stage and remained
stable at that level.
166
Coping Strategies
Coping data were collected from 56 astronauts and cosmonauts. There were
no significant overall differences for own nationality, gender, or nationality of crew
colleagues, and there were no significant baseline (preflight) differences. Over all
mission phases and nationalities, there were three statistically significant majorityminority differences (see figure 4).
The remainder of the coping strategy analyses concentrated on descriptions of
the mission phase where coping was most crucialthat is, during the flight. There
was a significant majority-minority main effect for 3 of the 12 categories. Majority
crewmembers were higher than minorities on Accepting Responsibility and lower
on Planful Problem-Solving and Seeking Social Support.
Mission duration had significant effects on five coping strategies during flight,
in each case with long-duration (four months or more) fliers higher than the short
(two weeks or less). The strategies affected were Confrontation, Escape/Avoidance,
Denial (all p=.01), Accepting Responsibility (p=.05), and Supernatural Protection
(p=.06).
Still during the flight phase, duration also figured in four interactions with
majority-minority status. In each case, the difference appeared in the longduration group only: Accepting Responsibility, Denial, and Escape/Avoidance
(p=.07), with majority fliers the highest on all three measures, and Supernatural
Protection (p=.06), with minority crewmembers the highest.
LIWC
Analysis by nationality showed higher word count scores for Russians than
Americans on references to affect in general, positive emotions, and optimism.
Americans scored higher on references to social interaction. Word count differences as a function of majority-minority status showed that minorities used fewer
words and phrases referring to social interaction, community, other individuals, and
human beings as a group.
There were no significant differences on such LIWC categories as anxiety,
anger, or sadness and no differences as a function of gender or mission duration.
167
DISCUSSION
Flying with Strangers: The Influence of Minority-Majority Status
It seems clear that space voyagers who fly in a crew composed mostly of people
from their own country have a different experience from those who are a minority flying with a mostly foreign crew. However, contrary to some assumptions that
minority status would be generally aversive, the data show a mixed picture. For
example, among minority participants, the value of Stimulation and Conformity
decreases between the preflight and in-flight phases; this decrease presumably indicates that both boredom and the desire to submerge ones own culturally learned
characteristics become less of a challenge over time. Simultaneously, Spirituality
increases, indicating a growing internal recognition of transcendental values that is
often found among astronauts and is apparently not thwartedand may in fact be
enhancedby being the odd person out in the crew. 39 Hedonism also increases,
implying a heightened concern with pleasure.
Being in the minority was associated with fewer references to social interaction, community, other specific individuals, and human beings in general. This
datum emerged from the computerized frequency analysis and is difficult to interpret because LIWC merely counts words and phrases; it does not differentiate on
the basis of context. More interesting is the fact that minority status also led to
more positive comments about ones family, perhaps to compensate for some degree
of social isolation; apparently, absence made the heart grow fonder (which was not
found for majority crewmembers). Ones own home organization evoked more negative references, confirming the complaints of inadequate preparation and support
that characterize some anecdotal comments. The agency in charge of the mission
that is, a space agency foreign to the minority flierwas viewed with increasing
mistrust as the mission unfolded, perhaps with the recognition that its rules and
procedures were alien and sometimes uncomfortable.
However, there was no evidence that bad feelings prevailed toward the majority crewmates, again despite conclusions sometimes drawn from selected anecdotal reports. In fact, the data showed a generally trustful and friendly attitude,
39. P. Suedfeld, Space Memoirs: Value Hierarchies Before and After MissionsA Pilot
Study, Acta Astronautica 58 (2006): 583586.
168
compatible with such reports as that of Shannon Lucid, a long-duration Mir resident with two Russian crewmates: Yes, we really had a good time together. We
really enjoyed being there together. Yuri and Yuri were absolutely fantastic to work
with. I mean, I could not have picked better people to spend a long period of time
with. We just lived every day as it came. We enjoyed every day. We enjoyed working together and joking around together. It was just a very good experience, I think,
for all of us.40
It should be noted that, in the same way, the majority crewmembers expressed
trust and friendship toward their foreign colleaguesonce again contradicting the
negative picture drawn from selective quoting of particular complaints. However,
comparisons of comments concerning the in-flight phase with those concerning the
postflight phase showed that these positive feelings did decline on both sides (and
especially among minorities), and both majority and minority veterans of longduration missions showed more Mistrust and Negative Intimacy than those who
flew shorter missions. Growing interpersonal stress as a function of isolation and
confinement with the same small group for over four months was thus confirmed
by our data.
We expected to find changes in values, as in previous research.41 Among the
most interesting changes was the drop in references to Power and Self-Direction,
for both groups but especially for the minority, as the narratives moved from the
pre- to the in-flight portion, followed by increases after the flight. The highly regimented aspects of the launch and the flight itself probably explain the general finding, and the somewhat tenuous and isolated role we have seen for many minority
crewmembers, from which they were freed after the mission, explains their more
dramatic changes. Minorities position within the crew may also be implied by their
higher scores on coping by Seeking Social Support and lower scores on Accepting
Responsibilitywhich in many cases they were not permitted to do. However, they
also used Planful Problem-Solving more frequently than their majority counterparts,
40. Shannon Lucid, interview by Mark Davison, Rebecca Wright, and Paul Rollins, 17 June
1998, published through Shuttle-Mir Oral History Project, Johnson Space Center History
Portal, available at http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/participants.htm (accessed 7 June
2010).
41. Suedfeld, Space Memoirs: 583586.
169
perhaps because they had to face not only the problems of spaceflight, but also the
problem of gaining full social equality.
Majority crewmembers characterization of their pre-mission life was marked
by more references to Achievement than that of the minority members; striving
to become an astronaut may be a more vivid achievement goal for those hopefuls
whose country has its own spaceflight capability (all majority subjects were from
either the United States or the USSR/Russia). Achievement scores in general were
high, compared to those for other values, as one would expect from a group with
the high levels of achievement that spacefarers had reached even before becoming
astronauts or cosmonauts.42
We speculate that for most astronauts and cosmonauts, Achievement is a
high-level background variable that tends to be taken for granted, not a primary
concern, except at particular periods; preparing to become an astronaut and then
to embark on a space mission may be such periods. This hypothesis is supported by
the finding of overall decreases in Achievement references between the preflight
phase and both subsequent phases as the successful mission and return reduce
concern about the persons ability to function at the desired level. In fact, space
agencies may want to provide Achievement opportunities for postflight astronauts to help them regain their interest in this value, as an astronaut for whom
Achievement has become drastically less important than before may suffer serious adverse consequences in adjustment, health, and performance.43
Status and Nationality
The often-cited cultural differencesespecially between the two major spacefaring nations, the United States and the USSR/Russiaseemed to make no difference
as to how positive and trusting relations among crewmembers were. Neither were
they reflected in overall comparisons of the individual-oriented versus group-oriented
values. However, Russian cosmonauts were higher in mentions of Achievement than
were American or other astronauts.
42. P. Suedfeld and T. Weiszbeck, The Impact of Outer Space on Inner Space, Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine 75, no. 7, supplement (2004): C6C9.
43. Suedfeld and Weiszbeck, The Impact of Outer Space on Inner Space: C6C9.
170
In some of our data, nationality did interact with the majority or minority status of the crewmember. For example, it is intriguing to see Russians mentioning
Achievement-related values especially often when they were in the majority during
a space mission, but much less frequently when they were in the minority, whereas
Americans did not change much as a function of their status. Achievement for the cosmonauts seems to be more closely linked to social approval from their compatriots than
it is for astronauts, perhaps stemming from the collectivist-individualistdifference.
Astronauts and cosmonauts varied in references to Conformity, but in opposite directions: the former were slightly higher when they were in the minority,
and the latter were much higher when they were in the majority. It may be that
Americans felt somewhat easier about being different from their compatriots but
felt constrained to fit into their foreign crewmates expectations. Russians, to the
contrary, confirmed traditional mores when they formed the majority but were freer
with dissent or individualism when flying alone with foreigners.
Status and Flight Duration
Discussing the spaceflight experience itself, majorities on short-duration missions referred to issues of Security more than minorities, perhaps because they
were the hosts responsible for the safety of the capsule and the mission, and
they may have felt responsible for the welfare of their guests as well as themselves. However, as missions lengthened, the pattern was reversed; the hosts may
have come to feel more secure while the guests became more concerned, possibly because of problems that only the former knew how to solve (e.g., the gradual
mechanical deterioration of Mir) or possibly because the latter were being prevented from full engagement in meaningful work dealing with those problems.
References to coping strategies in narratives of short flights showed no differences as a function of status. Long missions, however, evoked a majority-minority difference, with the majority higher on mentions of Accepting Responsibility, Denial,
and Escape/Avoidance. It may be that these went together: as one accepted more
responsibility for solving problems, it may also have become more important to use
emotion-oriented means of coping to reduce psychological stress. Minorities mentioned Supernatural Protection more frequently, confirming their increased mention of spiritual values.
171
Minorities participating in short flights may have appreciated the experience so

much that they let personal disharmony pass without comment, while the majority felt less compunction about mentioning interpersonal problems with the salient
other. In long flights, the guest may have both experienced more abrasiveness
and become less reluctant to describe it later; the hosts may have become habituated to the strangeness of the visitor or (note the increased mentions of Escape/
Avoidance and Denial, mentioned above) withdrawn from unpleasant interactions
either physically or psychologically, or both.
Status and Host Nationality
Minority members also reacted differently depending on which nation constituted the majority. Minorities who flew in predominantly American crews cited
pleasure and enjoyment, security, autonomy, and (paradoxically) conformity less
frequently than those who flew with Russians and also made fewer valenced (positive and negative) references in either direction to social relationships. Whether
these differences were the result of the minority members changing to fit in with
the majority (implying that the Russian colleagues themselves were more expressive than American crews, as is also indicated by the LIWC results) or of asserting
their own cultural distinctiveness is impossible to tell.
Minorities who flew with Interkosmos expressed a feeling of global concern for
Earth (universalism) less frequently than their Russian hosts, while the reverse was
true for minorities who flew with NASA. However, this is a misleading datum: the
two groups of minority fliers did not differ from each other; it was the hosts who differed, with higher scores among the Russian than the American majorities. Whether
this is a function of the generally greater emotional expressivity of the Russians or is
specific to the topic is not revealed by our data.
CONCLUSION
It appears that any problems related to mixed-nationality space crews may be

more a function of the fact that space capsules have belonged to, and were predominantly operated according to the traditions and standard operating procedures of,
172
one space agency. As a result, the minority guest tends to feel left out, unfamiliar with important matters that come naturally to his crewmates, and also feels
neglected and let down by his own home organization. This may be an even more
pressing problem for minorities who can fly only in that statusthat is, all nationalities except Russians, Americans, and (perhaps soon) Chinese. The development
and use of truly international missions, including international vehicles and common procedures, is a necessary countermeasure.
One possible way to reduce misunderstanding, miscommunication, and cultural
friction would be for all mission participants, both space crews and ground staff, to
have in situ language training and familiarization in each others countries. When
astronauts were being prepared for the Shuttle-Mir missions, they underwent extensive Russian language training and spent considerable time in Russia, both training and socializing with their future crewmates. Apparently it was not considered
necessary for the cosmonauts in the crew to have equal exposure to American culture and folkways: cosmonauts did not have prolonged deployments to Houston to
become linguistically and culturally adapted. This omission may have been economical in terms of money and time, but it was shortsighted in terms of smoothing
performance and interpersonal relations in space, and the lack of similar provisions
for mission controllers and staff exacerbated the problems.
We did not look at cultural or personal differences based on characteristics other
than nationality, although they have also been thought of as causes of increased stress.
However, there is no a priori reason to suspect that they would be any more important
in that role than nationality itself, given its pervasive nature: it underlies language,
values, history, traditions, child-rearing approaches, political ideologies, concepts of
human nature and the individual-society relationship, and so on. We have found, as
have other researchers, that differences within each national group are greater than
differences across groups; but the latter differences in any case were few except as they
interacted with majority-minority (or host-guest) status.
As has been expected, based on anecdotes but without much empirical grounding, long-duration missions (four months or more) reveal more abrasiveness and
dissatisfaction.44 Our data show that these negative tendencies also include more
44. See, for example, Lebedev, Diary of a Cosmonaut, or Lebedev, cited in Zimmerman, Leaving
Earth, p. 134.
173
divergence in values and concerns, and on the part of the majority, emotionoriented coping that does not really solve problems effectively. How this would
develop further on voyages lasting several years is unknown, but is certainly something that space agencies need to think about.
Individual changes in astronaut personalityin values and social orientation
may be evanescent, persistent, or permanent. They may be particularly problematic
for people who fly as minorities, especially on long missions. If they last into the
postflight life of the crewmember, they may affect his or her family relationships,
career progress, and physical and mental health. Again, it behooves the home organization to conduct nonthreatening and supportive post-return help where needed,
both for astronauts and for their families.
POSTSCRIPT
Much of the research concerning international crews has been based on the
prospect that such crews will continue to be the norm, as they have been on the
International Space Station. Some commentators have asserted that a project as
massive and complex as the trip to Mars would have to be an international technical, scientific, and financial effort (although that does not necessarily imply a
multinational crew). Politically, it seems that cooperation and collaboration have
become the permanent hallmark of space exploration.
As this chapter was being written, the old space race was showing signs of
reviving. NASAs three-stage plans, sparked by President George W. Bush, had
turned the worlds space agencies in new directions. Human return to the Moon,
a Moon base, and the voyage to Mars, seemed to have been adopted as goals by all
of the major space agencies. But by the same token, several agencies announced a
hope that their astronauts would be among those who took these giant steps. Some
countries (e.g., Canada) accepted that this would happen on an international vehicle, but others (e.g., Russia and China) indicated plans to go on their own. At that
time, the Administrator of NASA deplored the possibility of Chinese taikonauts
reaching the Moon before Americans return to itan echo of the early years, when
competition was the name of the game.
The Obama administrations 2010 decisions concerning the near future of
NASAs human space exploration programcanceling the construction of new
174
space vehicles, delaying if not abandoning a return to the Moon, delaying a voyage
to Mars, and introducing the novel possibility of using an asteroid as the next new
destinationmay have put the United States on the sidelines in any such renewed
space race. The impact of these changes for the future of multinational space crews
remains to be seen.
175
Chapter 8
Spaceflight and Cross-Cultural Psychology

Juris G. Draguns
Pennsylvania State University
Albert A. Harrison
ABSTRACT
In the first decade of spaceflight, the United States and the Soviet Union were
locked in relentless competition, but in 1975, the two nations joined together for
the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. In 1978, the Soviets began their Interkosmos, or
guest cosmonaut, program, whereby non-Soviet cosmonauts, mostly drawn from
Eastern Bloc nations, joined Soviet crews on Salyut space stations. Meanwhile, in
1969, the United States invited Europeans to participate in post-Apollo flights,
and the Europeans developed Spacelab, which first flew with the Space Shuttle
Columbia in 1983. Over the years, the largely symbolic Interkosmos program grew
into flights involving true partnerships between Soviets and non-Soviets, while
U.S. flights drew payload specialists from many different lands. In the early 1990s,
astronauts joined cosmonauts on Mir, and today the International Space Station
routinely carries multicultural crews. Experience gained during early international
missions revealed problems in such diverse areas as mission organization and management, work habits, communication, interpersonal relations, privacy, personal
cleanliness habits, food preferences, and leisure-time activities. We introduce the
culture assimilator as a potential aid in preparing spacefarers for international missions. We then explore cultural dimensions based on worldwide studies of values in
work environments and trace their implications for international flights. To conclude, we sound a note of caution against reifying cultural differences lest they
give rise to harmful stereotypes. Even as international missions will benefit from
177
cross-cultural psychology, cross-cultural psychology will benefit from studies conducted in space.
S P A C E E X P L O R AT I O N A N D C U LT U R A L LY
S H A P E D B E H AV I O R : A N T I C I P AT I O N S
A N D P R E PA R AT I O N S
Both spaceflight and cross-cultural psychology are young endeavors. As noted

in the introductory chapters, more than a few test pilots, high-altitude balloonists, and rockets (including some carrying test animals as passengers) preceded Yuri
Gagarin and Alan Shepard into space in 1961. Like spaceflight, systematic and continuous pursuit of research in cross-cultural psychology has a lengthy set of scattered
antecedents.1 The inaugural meeting of the International Association for CrossCultural Psychology took place in Hong Kong in 1972.2
The concerns of these two ventures began to coalesce in 1975, when the Cold
War defrosted a bit and the United States and Soviet Russia worked together on
the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. This required substantial cooperation among project
managers and engineers to ensure compatibility of the U.S. and Soviet spacecraft;
it also required collaborative training of astronauts and cosmonauts. Participants
grappled with each others languages and customs, as well as each others technology. Occasionally, astronauts and cosmonauts would slip away from program officials for hunting trips and other enjoyable, morale-building activities.3 As NASA
historians point out, The flight was more a symbol of the lessening of tensions
between the two superpowers than a significant scientific endeavor, a sharp contrast
with the competition for international prestige that had fueled much of the space
activities of both nations since the late 1950s.4
1. G. Jahoda, Our Forgotten Ancestors, in Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, vol. 37,

Cultural Perspectives, ed. J. J. Berman (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990), pp. 140.
2. J. L. M. Dawson and W. J. Lonner, eds., Readings in Cross-Cultural Psychology (Hong Kong:
University of Hong Kong Press, 1974).
3.
D. K. Slayton and M. Casutt, Deke! An Autobiography (New York: Forge Books, 1995).
4. NASA, Chronology of Selected Highlights in the First 100 American Spaceflights, 1961
1995, http://history.nasa.gov/Timeline/100flt.html (accessed 7 April 2008).
178
The initially daring and innovative enterprise of international missions has

expanded greatly over the years, although approximately 20 years would pass before
Americans and Russians again flew together. However, international crews appeared
early on. In 1976, the Soviet Union announced its Interkosmos or guest cosmonaut program. As James Oberg explains, the first, three-week flights in March,
June, and August 1978 included Czech Air Force Pilot Vladimir Remek, Polish
pilot Miroslaw Hewrmaszewski, and East German Air Force officer Sigmund Jahn.5
Actual flying was done by Soviet cosmonauts, who had many more years of training than their guests. Oberg recounts a joke about Remek returning to Earth with
red hands disease. When flight surgeons asked how he had acquired this malady,
Remek explained, Well, in space, whenever I reached for this or that switch, the
Russians cried Dont touch that! and slapped me on my hands.6 Other guest cosmonauts were recruited from Cuba, Bulgaria, Mongolia, and Romania.
Although Oberg portrays Interkosmos as largely symbolic, he also predicted
correctlythat this could give rise to true international missions with more active
participation on the part of the international partners. More recently, a NASA
report pointed out that Russia has flown cosmonauts from many countries, including Germany, India, Italy, Japan, South Africa, Syria, the United Kingdom, the
United States, and Vietnam.7 The first Western European to fly, Frenchman JeanLoup Chrtien, did so aboard Russian craft in 1982.
In the late 1970s, while the Interkosmos program flourished, the last Apollo
rocket had been launched, but the Space Shuttle had not yet completed the transition from drawing board to orbit. In 1969, NASA had invited Europeans to participate in post-Apollo flights, and in the 1970s, while the Europeans were hard
at work designing Spacelab, Ulf Merbold from West Germany, Wubbo Oeckels
from Holland, and Claude Nicollier from Switzerland were training for the Shuttle.
Merbold, flying aboard Columbia, was the first to reach orbit and did so in November
1983. By 2003, the 25th anniversary of Remeks historic flight, 30 European astronauts had participated in 44 missions: 26 in collaboration with NASA and 18
5. J. Oberg, Russias Guest Cosmonaut Program, A Commentary, L-5 News 3, no. 11

(November 1978): 12.
6.
Ibid., p. 2.
7. Astronaut, World Book at NASA, http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/astronaut_worldbook.

html (accessed 23 May 2010).
179
aboard Russian spacecraft.8 As of early 2008, Canadian astronauts had participated

in 1 Soyuz and 13 Space Shuttle flights.9 Five Japanese astronauts had successfully
completed their missions, and on 9 April of that year, the first South Korean astronaut, Yi So-Yeon, blasted off with two cosmonauts to head to the ISS.10 With 29
partners supporting the International Space Station, multicultural crews are the
rule, rather than the exception.
International flights make tremendous sense. First, as Jennifer Boyd Ritsher
points out, by drawing from an international pool, managers can tap a broader range
of interests and skills.11 Second, space missions are, in effect, overarching or superordinate goals that encourage different nations to work together and may serve as
a prototype for other collaborative ventures. And, most obviously, international
cooperation defrays the enormous expense, increasing the palatability of flight for
large, wealthy nations and enabling nations with fewer resources to participate in
space. Differences based on ethnicity and nationality have implications for everything from international relations to tourism. It is not surprising, therefore, to speculate that cultural differences could affect safety, performance, and well-being in
space. Since the United States and Russia control access to space, relations between
U.S. astronauts and Russian cosmonauts have gained the most attention.12
We found little discussion of cultural factors in early space psychology papers,
perhaps because during the tensions of the 1960s, it was all but impossible to imagine astronaut-cosmonaut collaboration. By the mid-1980s, in recognition of the
Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, Interkosmos, and Spacelab, cultural factors had joined
the list of psychologists concerns, with the threat of miscommunication (both verbal and nonverbal) the most prominent worry.13 Yet already by that time, there were
8. J. Feustl-Beuchl, 25 Years of European Human Spaceflight, ESA Bulletin (November

2003): 616.
9. Canadian Astronaut Missions, http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/astronauts/missions.asp
(accessed 23 May 2010).
10. JAXA, JAXAs Astronauts, Human Space Activities, http://www.jaxa.jp/projects/iss_human/
astro/index_e.html (accessed 6 April 2008).
Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, sect. II (2005): B135B144.
12. Ibid.
180
other concerns as wellprejudices against members of other cultures, in addition

to conflicting values and preferences. How would emotionally controlled astronauts
react to highly expressive Russians?14 Interest was further piqued in the 1990s when
astronauts joined cosmonauts on Mir. A 1993 study based on debriefing American
astronauts who had flown with international crewmembers revealed 9 preflight, 26
in-flight, and 7 postflight incidents of misunderstanding, miscommunication, and
interpersonal conflict.15 Journalist Bryan Burrough described (and perhaps slightly
sensationalized) several instances where cultural differences influenced astronaut
performance and morale.16 Cultural problems that the astronauts reported pertained
to personal hygiene, food preferences, and chosen activities as well as to interpersonal distance, privacy, and work styles.17 Jason Kring summarized experience with
international crews prior to the ISS as follows:
Apollo-Soyuz, Shuttle, and Shuttle-Mir proved, for the most part,
that international cooperation was feasible and rewarding. During
Shuttle-Mir, the U.S. and Russia gained from each others strengths
and weaknesses, learned how to work together, and gathered insights
that directly benefitted the ISS. There were, however, moments of
confusion and disagreement between the two countries, incidents
that affected crew performance and mission activities. Differences
in management, training, decision-making and problem resolution,
for example, were tied to differences in national culture and the
backgrounds of the U.S. and Russian crewmembers and personnel.18
A recent International Academy of Astronautics study group pointed out that
one of the reasons that culture is so important is because it influences almost all
14. Ibid.
15. P. A. Santy, A. W. Holland, L. Looper, and R. Macondes-North, Multicultural Factors
in an International Crew Debrief, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 64 (1993):
196200.
16. B. Burrough, Dragonfly: NASA and the Crisis Aboard Mir (New York: Harper Collins,
1998).
17. Ritsher, Cultural Factors and the International Space Station.
18. J. Kring, Multicultural Factors for International Spaceflight, Journal of Human
Performance in Extreme Environments 5, no. 3 (2001): 11.
181
forms of behavior.19 For example, in addition to causing communications difficulties, culture influences psychological reactions to stress, shapes social behavior, and
molds attitudes in such areas as food preferences, recreational activities, humor, and
privacy. Culture affects the likelihood and kinds of mental illness that arise, as well
as diagnosis and treatment. A severe problem that would be instantly recognized by
a psychiatrist who shared the same cultural background as the person in crisis might
not be recognized by a therapist from a different culture. Similarly, forms of therapy
that work in one culture may be ineffective in another. In his comprehensive summary, Kring identified 10 areas related to spaceflight that are influenced by national
culture and background: (a) communication; (b) cognition and decision making; (c) technology interfacing; (d) interpersonal interaction; (e) work, management, and leadership style; (f) personal hygiene and clothing; (g) food preparation
and meals; (h) religion and holidays; (i) recreation; and (j) habitat aesthetics.20 A
2007 review of training for astronauts identified cultural awareness and sensitivity
as among the skills required for astronauts.21 One of the tools that it mentions, in
passing, is the culture assimilator, to which we shall turn shortly.
As early as the 1970s, then, NASA and its Soviet, later Russian, counterpart
agency were faced with the major challenge of ensuring that astronauts and cosmonauts would work together smoothly and effectively. To this end, it was imperative
to identify and overcome obstacles rooted in socialization within different cultures
and contrasting sociopolitical systems. They had to recognize and accommodate the
weight of lifelong training and indoctrination, inextricably tied to the divergent
traditions and ideologies of the two countries. Today, prior to an international mission, astronauts receive at least a one-day seminar that discusses customs and cross-
19. N. Kanas, G. Sandal, J. B. Ritsher, V. I. Gushin, D. Manzey, R. North, G. Leon,

P.Suedfeld, S. Bishop, E. R. Fiedler, N. Inoue, B. Johannes, D. J. Kealry, N. Kraft, I.Matsuzaki,
D.Musson, L.A.Palinkas, V.P. Salnitskiy, W. Sipes, and J. Stuster, Psychology and Culture
During Long Duration Space Missions (revised final report, International Academy of
Astronautics Study Group on Psychology and Culture During Long-Duration Missions, 28
November 2006).
20. Kring, Multicultural Factors for International Spaceflight, p. 11.
21. S. J. Hysong, L. Galarza, and A. W. Holland, A Review of Training Methods and
Instructional Techniques: Implications for Behavioral Skills Training in U.S. Astronauts
(NASA TP2007-213726, May 2007), available at http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_
techrep/TP-2007-213726.pdf (accessed 2 July 2010).
182
cultural issues pertaining to the nation of the international partner. Additionally,

there is an opportunity for astronauts in Long Duration Mission (LDM) training for
the ISS to live with a Russian family for a few weeks during their years of ISS training. Many astronauts have taken advantage of this experiential opportunity. Also,
the Behavioral Health and Performance Section at Johnson Space Center developed a two-day seminar for LDM astronauts. Developed and presented with astronaut participation, this program is now managed by the Astronaut Corps.22 But
perhaps most important of all is the joint training, for many years, of astronauts and
cosmonauts in the United States and Russia.
When initially confronting cultural issues, NASA had to rely on intuition,
trial and error, and common sense. Now, NASA can draw on the results of several
decades of research on interaction in small groups, especially in those of heterogeneous composition, to better understand the social realities within the space capsule.
Researchers and operational personnel now build on the store of information that
accumulated in preparing sojourners, visitors, and immigrants for encounters with
a new culture. The space program can both utilize and anticipate the achievements
of emerging academic cross-cultural psychology, which is based in part on controlled
observation.23 Thus, we see a shrinking gulf between the research of cross-cultural psychologists and NASAs efforts to prepare astronauts for international missions. We
turn now to theories and principles that may reduce this gulf further.
T H E D O M A I N O F C R O S S - C U LT U R A L
P S Y C H O L O G Y : C U LT U R A L C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S
A N D I N T E R C U LT U R A L I N T E R A C T I O N
For the present purposes, following Kring, culture is defined as an individuals

values, beliefs, behavior patterns and language that are directly linked to his or her
national and ethnic background.24 Cross-cultural psychology is concerned with
the study of similarities and differences in individual psychological functioning
22. W. Sipes, personal communication, 8 April 2008.

23. Ritsher, Cultural Factors and the International Space Station.
24. Kring, Multicultural Factors: 12.
183
in various cultural and ethnic groups; of the relationships between these variables
and socio-cultural, ecological, and biological variables, and of ongoing changes in
these variables.25 In addition to pursuing these objectives, some psychologists have
ventured into intercultural research, which is concerned with the study of contacts
and interactions between persons from different cultures.26 Intercultural encounters
can be better understood and their effectiveness can be enhanced on the basis of
the body of knowledge of cross-cultural psychology that has largely accumulated in
the course of the last three or four decades. We now turn to some of the approaches
that have evolved from this research.
The Culture Assimilator
The culture assimilator, developed by F. E. Fiedler, T. Mitchell, and H. C.

Triandis, is an extensively used and systematically validated programmed learning
approach to cross-cultural training.27 As described by Triandis, it consists of 100 to
200 episodes, i.e. scenarios where people from two cultures interact. Each episode
is followed by four or five explanations of why the member of the other culture has
acted in a specific way. The trainee selects one of the explanations and is asked to
turn to another page (or computer screen) where feedback is provided concerning
the chosen explanation.28 The objective is not only to help people anticipate concrete situations that are construed and reacted to differently in another culture, but
to help them gradually grasp the rules that underlie the various expected and normal courses of action in the culture in question. Controlled studies of training by
means of the culture assimilator demonstrate that it results in trainees selecting
explanations of others behavior that are closer to those chosen by the members of
the target culture. Moreover, the learners attributions tend to become more spe-
25. J. W. Berry, Y. H. Poortinga, M. H. Segall, and P. R. Dasen, Cross-Cultural Psychology:

Research and Applications, 2nd ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 3.
26. R. W. Brislin, Understanding Cultures Influence on Behavior, 2nd ed. (Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt College Publishers, 2000).
27. F. E. Fiedler, T. Mitchell, and H. C. Triandis, The Culture Assimilator: An Approach to
Cross-Cultural Training, Journal of Applied Psychology 55 (1971): 95102.
28. H. C. Triandis, Culture and Social Behavior (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994), p. 278.
184
cific and complex and less ethnocentric, and they become better at estimating what
members of the target culture will do.29 Thus, a great deal of anticipatory culture
learning takes place in a relatively short period of time.
The culture assimilator then represents a vicarious enculturation experience
preparatory to the actual encounter with a new and different culture. Does it have
anything to offer over the real-life immersion in the other culture, followed by thorough debriefing that NASA has already instituted for astronauts assigned to multinational space crews? Potentially, there are four advantages that the assimilator
may provide.
First, the rationale, if not the actual procedure, of the culture assimilator pinpoints and makes explicit the themes and features of the other culture. This is particularly germane to the debriefing phase as specific incidents and encounters come
to be imbued with more general meaning and patterns are established.
Second, properly constructed, the culture assimilator increases the range of
situations that people are likely to encounter. This helps people fill in the gaps
and respond appropriately to spontaneous and somewhat unpredictable instances
of unfamiliar cultural realities.
Third, on the basis of the accumulated experience with mixed AmericanRussian space crews over three decades, we can anticipate specific problems and
incorporate them into custom-made versions of the assimilator. That is, the assimilator can be adapted to cover the unique situations of astronauts and cosmonauts.
Fourth, the culture assimilator methodology is useful in both its specific and its
general aspects. Given the ever-greater variety of nations from which spaceflight
participants are increasingly drawn, it may be possible to develop a general culture
for increasing generic awareness and sensitivity, especially into the early phases of
astronaut training.
Subjective Culture
Conceptually, the development of the culture assimilator was linked with

basic research in Greece, India, and Japan, which Triandis conducted on subjective
29. Ibid.
185
culture.30 Subjective culture encompasses the characteristic ways of viewing the

humanmade environment.31 More specifically, it comprises the standards by which
events and actions are evaluated in a culture as well as the ideas, theories, and
explanations shared by that culture. The investigation of subjective culture focuses
on categorizations, associations, and beliefs, and on their interrelationships. In this
manner, it becomes possible to ascertain the inner coherence of culture as it is experienced by its members. Subjective culture is implicitly known to its members, even
though this knowledge is rarely articulated. Somewhat like a speakers first language, it is used effectively and correctly by the members of the culture, but its rules
and practices must be made explicit for an outsider.
Triandis developed a number of complex methods for bringing facets of subjective culture to the fore.32 Thus, beliefs, behavior patterns, and social rituals are
related to the other features of the culture. In this manner, the culturally characteristic meanings of happiness, risk, science, family, and other terms and
concepts are established empirically and related in pinpoint fashion to behaviors,
practices, and convictions.
In reference to spaceflight, it is interesting to explore the commonalities and differences in association, categorization, and rules of conduct among the astronauts of
various nations. Specifically, it would be worthwhile to investigate cross-culturally the
meaning of spaceflight. Into what clusters of meaning is it embedded, and what are
the behavioral consequences? What cultural misunderstandings, if any, may arise on
the basis of putative cultural divergences related to these notions? Conversely, is it
possible to think differently but act identically, especially when the participants from
several cultures are thoroughly trained in their technical tasks and their interactions?
Subjective culture allows investigators to peer beneath the behavioral surface
and to uncover the implicit, yet socially shared, levels of consciousness in their relation to characteristic behavior. Just as no two persons speak their first language alike
or perfectly, each persons subjective culture is the best approximation of his or her
culture based on the individuals lifetime of experience. To optimize the intense
and demanding interaction in the space capsule, we can ascertain the subjective
30. H. C. Triandis, Subjective Culture (New York: Wiley, 1972).

31. Ibid.
32. Triandis, Culture and Social Behavior.
186
cultures of specific individuals in their personal uniqueness, cultural distinctiveness,

and human universality.
Critical Incidents
K. Cushner and R. W. Brislin extended culture assimilator methodology to a set

of 100 sketches pertaining to 18 themes representative of various domains of intercultural experience.33 These vignettes represent critical incidents frequently encountered by newcomers to a culture other than their own. Each vignette is accompanied
by four options, one of which, through thorough pretesting, has been deemed to be
the most culturally appropriate. Critical incidents serve as points of departure for
the development of more specific, yet critically important, items that would sensitize
astronauts to crucial, yet culturally divergent, aspects of interaction and cooperation
during space missions. Extending these methods to space, we would pool knowledge
of participants cultures with information on the personal, social, and technical challenges of flight. That is, previously encountered problems, conflicts, and crises are the
requisite raw material for the construction of incidents.
Cultural Dimensions: Value Orientation
On the basis of multistage factor analyses conducted on a huge store of data

from 72 countries, G. Hofstede identified four relatively independent cultural
dimensions.34 Originally based on questionnaire responses on values in the workplace, Hofstedes four factors have been studied around the world in educational,
social, mental health, and many other settings. The second edition of his monograph and more recent publications, for example by G.Hofstede and G.J. Hofstede,
33. K. Cushner and R. W. Brislin, Intercultural Interactions: A Practical Guide, 2nd ed.
(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995).
34. G. Hofstede, Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values
(Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1980).
187
document a prodigious amount of research-based findings.35 It is no exaggeration

to say that Hofstedes dimensions are among the most intensively investigated psychological constructs in the last three decades.
As labeled by Hofstede, the four dimensions pertain to power distance, individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, and uncertainty avoidance, respectively. Subsequent to the completion of Hofstedes original data collection, a fifth
dimension was added on the basis of a somewhat different methodology. It refers
to short- versus long-term orientation and was originally designed to span the continuum between Confucian and Western dynamism. Power distance was defined
by Hofstede and Hofstede as the extent to which unequal distribution of power is
accepted as a normal or natural state of affairs. Individualism-collectivism is a bipolar dimension, bounded by the exaltation of the self at one extreme and the overriding prominence of the group or collectivity at the other. Masculinity-femininity
refers to the characteristic overlap between gender roles that is encountered within
a culture. Such overlap is less extensive in masculine and more extensive in feminine cultures. Moreover, masculine cultures are tilted toward achievement and
performance, and feminine cultures favor caring. Uncertainty avoidance is high
in those cultures where situations that lack clarity or structure are experienced
as unpleasant or noxious. Low uncertainty-avoidance settings thrive on ambiguity, unpredictability, and improvisation. Long-term orientation differs from shortterm orientation in the degree to which a cultures members are willing to postpone
immediate reinforcement in favor of delayed rewards.
In the present context, it is worth noting that, as reported by Hofstede and
Hofstede, the U.S. culture has been found to be the highest in individualism among
the 72 cultures for which such indicators are available and that Russias rank on this
dimension is 37th and Japans, 46th.36 On the other hand, Russia clearly exceeds
both Japan and the United States in power distance, in which it ranks 6th while
Japanese and American ranks are 50th and 58th, respectively. In uncertainty avoidance, the ranks are 7th for Russia; for Japan, 12th; and for the United States, 63rd.
In masculinity-femininity, Japan is more masculine, ranking 2nd, while the United
35. G. Hofstede, Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations
Across Nations, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001); G. Hofstede and G. J. Hofstede, Cultures
and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005).
36. G. Hofstede and G. J. Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind.
188
States and Russia placed 19th and 63rd, respectively. Japan is also substantially
higher in long-term orientation, placing 4th on this dimension, with United States
coming in 29th out of 38 countries. Somewhat surprisingly, Russian university student samples were higher in long-term orientation than those of their counterparts
in the United States, a finding that indicates persistent paternalism in the Russian
culture. These findings, however, need to be extended and replicated.
To what extent (if any) and in what specific situations are these cultural value
dimensions practically relevant to international spaceflight? We might expect that
the demanding characteristics of spaceflight and the rigorous training that all astronauts undergo would override any cultural differences in Hofstedes dimensions.
Moreover, we admit freely that the available cultural ranks for these traits may not
be predictive of a specific individuals value pattern or of his or her performance.
However, observations over several decades of international spaceflights forcefully
show that cultural differences do matter. Extrapolation from the rapidly growing body
of findings pertaining to personality differences between Russians and Americans,
recently reviewed by Ritsher, strongly suggests that Hofstedes dimensions tie together
many results.37 In particular, the importance of collectivism-individualism has been
widely recognized. In fact, Yuri Gagarin anticipated Hofstedes findings and formulations by stating in 1968 that in our country, it is much easier to form a crew for a
long-duration space mission than in capitalist countries [because we] are collectivist by nature.38
A. Merritts comparison of airline pilots from 19 nations on Hofstedes dimensions found a significant effect of these variables on attitudes and behaviors, even
though there was a detectable commonality across countries based on pilots occupational culture. Differences across cultures were more pronounced when the
indicators were made more relevant to the pilots occupational context. Merritt
concluded that these results may extend to any population that is hierarchical in
nature and involves teams of individuals interacting in high stress, high technology environments.39
37. Ritsher, Cultural Factors in the International Space Station.

38. As quoted in Ritsher, Cultural Factors: B135.
39. A. Merritt, Culture in the Cockpit: Do Hofstedes Dimensions Replicate? Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology 31 (2000): 299.
189
O T H E R A P P R O A C H E S T O C U LT U R A L LY
D I S T I N C T I V E VA L U E S
On a theoretical basis, S. H. Schwartz and A. Bardi have asserted that values constitute the central, nodal features of cultures that inevitably radiate to and
affect all aspects of human behavior, conduct, and performance.40 Schwartz has
developed and extensively investigated in 20 nations a set of 11 values based on
important and stable life goals.41 Schwartzs value categories have been studied in
relation to national differences (American versus Russian), majority versus minority status, and host versus guest status in multinational space crews. These results
are reported in chapter 7 of this volume. On Earth, Russian teachers endorsed hierarchy and conservatism to a greater degree and intellectual and affective autonomy
to a lesser degree than did their colleagues in several countries of Western Europe.
Relevant as the differences in collectivism-individualism are, they should not
be the sole or principal focus of investigation. As already noted, even greater contrasts have been uncovered in power distance and uncertainty avoidance, as have
substantial differences in masculinity-femininity and long-term orientation. Recent
historical and sociological analyses of Russian society and polity emphasize the role
of vertical and hierarchical, dominant-submissive relationships within the Russian
social structure.42 Their reverberations in human interaction, especially in the context of teamwork under demanding and stressful conditions, do not appear to have
been studied systematically or intensively. Similarly, it is not yet clear in what ways,
if at all, the substantial Russian-American differences in uncertainty avoidance may
be manifested in space. The discrepancies in ratings in masculinity-femininity and
long-term versus short-term orientation appear to be baffling or even counterintuitive and call for open-ended exploration through basic and applied research. In
40. S. H. Schwartz and A. Bardi, Influences of Adaptation to Communist Rule on Value

Priorities in Eastern Europe, Political Psychology 18 (1997 ): 385410.
41. Shalom H. Schwartz, Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical
Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25
(1992): 165.
42. Y. Afanasev, Opasnaya Rossia (Dangerous Russia) (Moscow: Russian State Humanities
University Press, 2001); V. Shlapentokh, Fear in Contemporary Society: Its Negative and Positive
Effects (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006); V. Shlapentokh, Contemporary Russia as a
Feudal Society (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007).
190
what sense are the Russian society and its members committed to long-term goals,
and what form does the feminine orientation take in social interaction, attitudes,
and behavior? The initial impression is that of a conservative, authoritarian, though
more matriarchal than patriarchal, society, which appears paradoxical in light of
Russias radical and revolutionary history through much of the 20th century.
Beyond these widely studied, internationally comparable dimensions, future
investigators should open new lines of inquiry, proceeding from general observations or important themes in Russian culture. An example would be the systematic
exploration of the role of patience, especially under adversity and other forms of
stress, often described as an important mode of adaptation in Russia.43
E X PA N D I N G T H E R A N G E O F C U LT U R E S
As space exploration becomes ever more international, the approaches and

findings of cross-cultural psychology may be extended to other cultures. Japanese
astronauts have flown with both Americans and Russians. Observations and experiences from these flights, from both the hosts and the Japanese participants points
of view, would provide valuable guidance in planning future spaceflights. There is
substantial and diverse research-based literature on cultural characteristics in personality, emotional expression, and social behavior in Japan. Thus, in addition to
Hofstedes dimensions in Japan, described earlier, one can draw upon studies of differences between Japanese and Americans and ways to bridge them; characteristics of Japanese selves, modes of interpersonal relating, and socialization within
the family and at school; and many other themes.44 Collectively, these contributions point to the prominence of group orientation in Japan that is reflected in
self-experience, interpersonal relations, and styles of adaptation. But it would be
an oversimplification to describe the Japanese self as sociocentric or the Japanese
43. V. Shlapentokh, Russian Patience: A Reasonable Behavior and a Social Strategy,
Archives Euripeenes de Sociologie 36 (1995): 247280.
44. W. Goodykunst and T. Nishida, Bridging Japanese/North American Differences (Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994); N. Rosenberger, ed., Japanese Sense of Self (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992); L. T. Doi, Anatomy of Dependence (Tokyo: Kodansha,
1973); D. W. Shwalb and B. J. Shwalb, eds., Japanese Childrearing: Two Generations of Scholarship
(New York: Guilford Press, 1996).
191
social orientation as collectivistic. Instead, more than five decades of systematic

research reveals a more complex picture pointing to an intricate intertwining of collectivistic attitudes with individualistic striving. Japanese and Americans both aspire
toward positive selves. However, Heine, Takata, and Lehman have concluded that
Japanese self seems better characterized by a need to secure a positive view from
others rather than from oneself and this securing of others approval seems to be better served by self-improvement rather than self-enhancement.45 Performance and
well-being of the Japanese tend to be enhanced in groups composed of their compatriots; subjective and output effects of being a minority of one among strangers in
space await systematic investigation.
C AU T I O N S A N D L I M I TAT I O N S
In past decades, cultural factors in behavior and experience tended to be slighted

or overlooked; with the current emphasis on cultural awareness, there is an emergent danger of exaggerating the importance of culture. The former tendency leads
to cultural insensitivity; the latter trend promotes stereotyping and thereby reduces
personal sensitivity. Let us forever keep in mind that differences between individuals who come from different cultures are not automatically traceable to culture. In
complex situations encountered in the course of international spaceflight, culture is
likely to interact with other factors in affecting behavior and well-being, and in some
instances, culture may have had a minor or negligible influence. Moreover, astronauts and cosmonauts are of necessity exceptional individuals, certainly shaped by
their respective cultures, but also statistically discrepant from most of their cultural
peers. We face a formidable undertaking to disentangle the cultural threads operating in any concrete instance. It is a challenge that requires persistence, patience, and
creativity to formulate general principles of cultures influence in interaction with the
person and his or her context. Increasing participation of female astronauts from various nations will provide new challenges and opportunities for studying and optimizing the culture by gender interactions in space.
45. S. J. Heine, T. Takata, and D. R. Lehman, Beyond Self-Presentation: Evidence for SelfCriticism Among Japanese, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26 (2000): 71.
192
I N T E R C U LT U R A L C O O P E R A T I O N I N S P A C E :
A U N I Q U E S O U R C E O F C R O S S - C U LT U R A L D A T A
The preceding sections have dealt with the potential contributions of crosscultural psychology to the implementation of international missions. We now turn
the tables and see what unique intercultural interaction in space may contribute
to the store of knowledge of cross-cultural psychology. Observations from space
should be thoroughly and factually documented. Given the singularity of the situations involved, qualitative observations of interactions and encounters should
lead the way. Whenever possible, they should be quantified and studied by means
of procedures for N of 1, followed by the gradual imposition of formal but flexible
researchdesigns.46
Qualitative retrospective study of the evolution of international missions
should include interviews of the surviving veterans of the early stages of space
exploration, with emphasis on the social and personal values and philosophies of
life as well as ideologies and beliefs that animated these concerns. How have these
national and personal goals been transformed in the course of the last 50 years, as
the cultures of both the United States and Russia have undergone various degrees of
change, from the social upheaval in America in the 1960s and 1970s to the demise
of the Soviet political and economic system?
With only slight exaggeration, adaptation to space missions, especially longduration missions, can be likened to adaptation to a small society or a miniculture, with its own internal rules and evolving customs as well as externally
imposed imperatives. What, then, are the characteristics of the communities of
space exploration on the ground and in space, and what are their commonalities
across nations and their culturally specific hallmarks?
Proceeding from these considerations, we should identify the characteristics of
spaceflight participants and the cultural differences, if any, between astronauts of
participating nations. Equally importantly, researchers might find that astronauts
similarities may override national characteristics. Perhaps a shared core of traits
accounts for the effective and productive, though by no means problem-free, outcome of joint missions in space.
46. W. F. Dukes, N=1, Psychological Bulletin 64 (1965): 7479.
193
Greater availability of participant observations of spacefarers from numerous

nations is one of the byproducts of the modern space exploration era. Spacefarers
perspectives on the dynamics of monocultural and bicultural space crews provide
a major resource that should be systematically tapped and utilized. Conversely, the
accounts of the subjective experiences of these guest astronauts are a source of information on being a minority of one in a novel, demanding, and stressful undertaking.
Space exploration has been both a challenge and a boon to cross-cultural psychology: a challenge by demonstrating that, even though it is a young branch of its
discipline, it has methods and findings to contribute to the continued progress of
space exploration, and a boon by making it possible to collect a wealth of unique
data of cultural relevance. These data remain to be sifted, categorized, and incorporated into a set of general principles. Potentially, cross-cultural psychology stands to
be tremendously enriched as this happens. We hope that cross-cultural psychologys
contribution to international missions will constitute a partial repayment.
194
Afterword
From the Past to the Future

Gro Mjeldheim Sandal
Department of Psychosocial Science
University of Bergen
Gloria R. Leon
University of Minnesota
ABSTRACT
Although NASA has been criticized for many years for neglecting psychological issues in research and operations, the past several years have witnessed an
increased recognition of the importance of psychosocial and cultural factors in the
success and safety of human space missions. The challenges associated with future
long-duration missions involving extreme environments, isolation, and greater crew
autonomy as the distance from Mission Control increases require effective countermeasures to mitigate the risk for behavioral health problems, psychiatric disorders,
and impairments in effective crew interactions and task performance. International
space missions also underscore the need to understand the potential safety implications of individual and cultural differences at a national, organizational, and professional level that involve both space crews and ground-based personnel. While the
research literature on space psychology has increased over the last few years, many
unanswered questions remain that require additional investigation.
INTRODUCTION
Since the first solo flight of a human being into Earth orbit, human spaceflight
has undergone significant changes in terms of crew composition, mission duration, and complexity. Even the major achievement of the establishment of the
195
International Space Station (ISS), put into service in 2000, must be regarded as
just one further step toward a much bigger endeavor: human exploratory missions
into outer space and the establishment of human outposts on other celestial bodies
of the solar system. This effort might include a return to the Moon and the establishment of a lunar station for permanent occupation, as well as flights of humans
to our neighbor planet Mars. Technology is just one important aspect of such longduration space missions. Beyond that, there is no doubt that different biomedical
and psychological factors might represent important limitations to the success of
themissions.
The chapters presented in this volume and publications elsewhere demonstrate
advances in our understanding of challenges related to human spaceflights. Yet a
number of issues remain that require additional investigation. This is particularly
the case in regard to long-duration exploratory space missions to the Moon and
Mars, which to some extent can be expected to involve the same range of psychological issues and risks that have been reported from long-duration orbital flights,
simulation studies, and expeditions into analog environments. Nonetheless, missions to Mars will add a new dimension to the history of human expeditions into
terrae incognitae with respect to the distance and duration of travel. Such missions
might not be comparable to any other undertaking humans have ever attempted
because of the long distance of travel, the duration of constant dependence upon
automated life-support systems, the degree of isolation and confinement, and the
lack of short-term rescue possibilities in case of emergencies. Current knowledge
about human adaptation under these conditions is very limited, but predictions
about the emergence of certain psychological issues can be extrapolated from Earthbased analogs and studies, as well as previous spaceflights. For example, historical
expeditions to unknown parts of the world parallel some of the human requirements associated with future interplanetary missions. In addition, studies of personnel wintering over on Antarctic research stations, such as the Concordia station,
in which the European Space Agency (ESA) has been involved in recent years,
may provide highly useful data in such fields as telemedicine as well as psychophysiological reactions and group dynamics associated with isolation and lack of evacuation possibilities. A 500-day space simulation study in hyperbaric chambers is
currently under way to model the living conditions of crews on future Mars missions. While these earthbound analogs provide interesting platforms for research,
a much more detailed understanding of the concrete scientific and operational
196
demands of planetary exploration mission space crews and the design of their habitats is needed before the psychological issues associated with these missions can
finally be assessed.
It is beyond doubt that political and commercial interests, to a large extent,
will dictate crew composition for future missions, and these forces might introduce
new factors that must be addressed as part of mission planning. An era of space tourism seems to be at hand, as highlighted by the study presented by Harvey Wichman
in chapter 5. Now that the Russian, European, and American space agencies are
equal partners on joint projects such as the ISS, they are faced with challenges
related to collaboration among people with different cultural backgrounds. For a
long time, the impact of cultural variability seemed to be a neglected area in aerospace research. As demonstrated by several chapters in this volume, the last few
years have witnessed an increased recognition of the potential safety risks associated with cultural heterogeneity in terms of nationality, organizational background,
and profession. Accidents like those involving Challenger and Columbia have underscored the need for future studies to focus not only on people operating in space,
but also on ground-based personnel.
Management of the safety culture may become even more complex in international space programs in which mission preparation and control often demand
the coordinated effort of different space agencies. An interesting study by L.Tomi,
P.Stefanowska, and V.F. Doyle involved data collection among ISS personnel from
different agencies.1 The results demonstrated the need for training and intervention beyond the space crews and the need to address differences in organizational
cultures, in addition to those between national cultures. A similar conclusion was
reached in another study involving 600 employees working for ESA that addressed
challenges associated with collaboration with representatives from other agencies.
Preliminary results indicate that the most prominent difficulties differed according to agency and seem to reflect value differences anchored in organizational and
nationalculture.2
1
L. Tomi, P. Stefanowska, and V. F. Doyle, Cross-cultural Training Requirements
Definition Survey for the International Space Station (paper presented at the 115th Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA, August 2007).
2
G. M. Sandal and D. Manzey, Cultural Determinants of Co-working of Ground
Personnel in the European Space Agency, Acta Astronautica 65 (2009): 15201569.
197
In contrast to the interest traditionally shown by the Russians in space psychology, an interest now shared by European as well as Japanese space agencies,
NASA has been criticized for neglecting psychological issues in research and operations. Many researchers and others have observed that the NASA culture discouraged questions about the behavioral health of astronauts since they were assumed to
have the right stuff. Recently, these issues have gained more attention. In chapter 2, Albert Harrison and Edna Fiedler describe some recent positive developments
within the NASA establishment in moving away from the marginalization of psychology. A more realistic recognition of stress and its consequences has led to a
concern with prevention and countermeasures as a result of experiences during the
Russian-American Shuttle-Mir Program and the ISS.
Greater attention to the psychological health of astronauts is reflected in a
NASA-sponsored behavioral health workshop held several years ago, followed by
some increase in more formal operational attention to postmission functioning of
the astronaut and his/her family. However, there is still much planning, program
implementation, and change in organizational culture that needs to be carried out
for these efforts to be more than a perfunctory gesture. A major problem in terms
of astronaut and perhaps, to some extent, family behavioral health is the organizational factors that work against disclosure of psychological problems. The concern by astronauts that disclosure will result in nonassignment or removal from a
flight assignment likely has considerable justification in reality. The right stuff
culture and concerns about confidentiality feed into a system where personal problems might be denied or dealt with in dysfunctional ways such as substance abuse,
impulsive or high-risk behaviors, and family and other interpersonal conflicts. The
findings of the 2007 NASA Astronaut Health Care System Review Committee
indicated that none of those interviewed knew of an astronaut who had sought
behavioral health care.
A focus on behavioral assessment and health should extend from the process
of selection to training, in-flight, and postflight periods. Passing a psychological/
psychiatric screening upon entrance to the astronaut corps does not predict the
absence of psychological/behavioral problems that might occur at a later time. In
considering crew selection for future long-duration lunar and planetary missions,
a particularly thorny issue is the prediction of the later development of psychopathology in initially healthy individuals. This situation would not only affect the disabled person, but would also have a detrimental effect on overall crew performance
198
and safetypotentially, it could even jeopardize the mission. Some disorders, for
example, certain types of depression and anxiety disorders, as well as liability for
schizophrenia, have a considerable genetic component that might be detected by
inquiries about family background. As the field of genetic testing and other statistical predictors of dysfunction develop over time, this information could be used in
screening, selection, and later evaluation. However, in fairness to individual astronauts, it is very important to remain cognizant of the fact that liability is not
the same as the development of a disorder. Moreover, in reality, it seems impossible to deal with possible deleterious behavioral health consequences in space simply by focusing on selection criteria, which thus far have been the most prominent
countermeasure applied by space agencies. Therefore, the careful development and
implementation of psychological, pharmaceutical, and other countermeasures to
deal with these potential problems is extremely important.
In recent years, a number of reports, papers, and books have identified and
emphasized psychological problems related to long-duration spaceflights. Concerns
have been raised about the stressors to which crewmembers are exposed and the
potential deleterious effects on health, group functioning, performance, and safety.
More recently, Peter Suedfeld has brought a new perspective into the field by emphasizing the salutogenic, growth-enhancing aspects of experiences in space as well as in
other extreme environments and conditions. Rather than focusing on pathogenesis,
this approach directs attention to the fostering of human strengths that act as buffers against psychological dysfunction and the adverse effects of stress. Chapter 7, by
Suedfeld, Kasia Wilk, and Lindi Cassel, presents a careful study of the change in values and coping mechanisms by majority and minority crewmembers from preflight to
in-flight and postflight status, with somewhat different trajectories and value changes
between the two groups. The in-flight increase by minority members in spirituality and family interest reflects positive growth; the decline in references to power
and self-direction may be a reflection of a host/guest phenomenon. While these
value changes were not sustained postflight, it is possible that with the experience
of an extended flight to the Moon or Mars, greater changes in values would occur
that would be more stable and would extend to the postflight period. In general, a
transformation of a value hierarchy might represent a coping strategy for maintaining motivation during long-duration missions. This transformation might also be
reflected in terms of certain personality characteristics becoming more prominent
or diminished, depending on the individuals space experiences.
199
The salutogenic aspects of space are also reflected in the study of self-initiated
photography during leisure time in space and the larger number of photos taken as the
mission progressed, described in chapter 4 by Julie Robinson and colleagues. Many
astronauts have commented on the awesome, existential phenomenon of viewing
Earth from space, and it is the primary leisure-time activity. The perhaps hard-wired
pleasure of communing with nature and the feeling of spirituality that is often a part
of this activity seem to form an important positive component of life in space; they
are also a means of coping with negative aspects of space missions. For example,
Russian cosmonauts have commented on the pleasure they experienced on space
missions by growing plants, watering and tending to them and watching the plants
thrive. A challenge for future long-duration missions to distant planets where Earth
and home will no longer be in view is to plan for other methods of viewing the cosmos and opportunities for leisure photography during planetary exploration.
While the transformation of values may be regarded as a constructive coping
mechanism, these changes might also carry potential hazardous aspects. During a
future expedition to Mars or beyond, a partial or complete loss of commitment to
the usual (earthbound) system of values and behavioral norms could result that,
in extreme cases, might involve unforeseeable risks in terms of individual behavior, performance of mission tasks, and interpersonal interactions within the crew.
This might make any external control and guidance of the crew extremely difficult. Experiences from some military combat units indicate that microcultures that
develop in isolated groups can diverge profoundly in values and behaviors from
societal norms (e.g., the groupthink phenomenon). An open-minded investigation
might be necessary to understand group processes that are likely to occur in confined, isolated, and autonomous crews.
Any breakdown of communication, cooperation, and cohesiveness of a space
crew must be considered as an important limiting factor to mission success and
safety. One concern raised by several of the authors in this volume is that impairments of crew interactions and operations might be induced by cultural and gender
differences. With long-duration missions, one would anticipate changes and fluctuations in interpersonal as well as task cohesion over time and the possible influence
of factors such as gender and culture on these relationships. Chapter 6, by Jason
Kring and Megan Kaminski, addresses the issue of gender composition and crew
cohesion, also examining unidimensional and multidimensional conceptions and
types of cohesion, for example, interpersonal versus task cohesion. While there is a
200
growing literature on mixed-gender and multicultural groups in polar settings and

space simulations, the information from space missions is primarily anecdotal. With
respect to gender, this is partly because of the low number of women involved and
the associated need to maintain confidentiality. Also, the small sample sizes make
it difficult to isolate the effects of gender or culture from factors such as personality
and professional training experiences. Most spaceflight experiences with multicultural space crews, thus far, stem from international Shuttle or Mir missions where
cross-cultural aspects were inevitably confounded with host/guest differences, i.e.,
where the missions usually involved one dominant culture being the host for
crewmembers from other countries, organizations, and professions.
There is no doubt that national interests will continue to play a major role in
decisions about the cultural mix of crews for specific missions. Within that context,
decisions about crew composition ideally should be made on the basis of the compatibility of a group of persons possessing the range of skills required for the particular mission. This information can be obtained by behavioral observations of a larger
group from which a particular crew will be selected. The use of a uniform assessment battery across countries to provide data to inform about selection for specific
space missions would also be helpful. However, in reality, this information might be
difficult to obtain. Space agencies have shown differences in preferences regarding
measurements. Additionally, the same measure might not be equally applicable or
valid for different national groups. In the context of long-duration spaceflight such
as a future Mars mission, there is still very little empirical evidence to inform on the
ideal crew mix despite the many discussions that have ensued. Addressing this issue
by conducting systematic research in analog environments will require a significant
commitment by space agencies in terms of priorities and funding. However, it is
likely that existing basic research and studies from other fields on broader populations can provide important insights into group processes in spaceflights. For example, information about cooperation in multinational groups is available from fields
such as anthropology, sociology, and cross-cultural psychology. Although one needs
to be mindful about the fact that astronauts represent a highly selected group, findings from broader populations can, to a large extent, be used to generate empirical
testable hypotheses for research in analog environments.
A comprehensive program in spaceflight behavioral health must be broad based;
be interdisciplinary; and address issues at the individual, small group, and organizational levels. In dealing with issues of relevance to multinational spaceflight,
201
cross-cultural collaboration in research should be considered mandatory to prevent ethnocentrism in design and interpretations. Such collaboration, although
often challenging, might provide research results that are more easily accepted and
applicable across national agencies. Rigorous theories and thorough methodological
designs are prerequisites for progress in the field. In chapter 3, Sheryl Bishop points
out that one key methodological and validity issue is the added value of utilizing
consistent measures across various expeditions, allowing a more valid comparison of
individuals and teams across environments, including space. With awareness of this
problem, researchers in the last several years have tended more often to use a common set of measures that facilitate the comparison of results across studies. While
this is a positive development, potential cultural bias in the assessment methodology must not be overlooked. For example, J.B. Ritsher has emphasized that cultural
differences may affect the accuracy of methods for detecting distress in spaceflights,
so specific methods will not work equivalently.3
Robust and sensitive assessment methods for monitoring behavior and health
in space are crucial for obtaining a high quality of research, but also for the early
detection of behavioral health problems. Improved prediction, prevention, and
treatment of distress will improve the safety of international long-duration space
missions. With regard to both prevention and treatment, the development of countermeasures designed for autonomous crews become more important as we prepare
for much longer exploration-class missions to Mars and beyond. One example is the
development of a computer-interactive video countermeasure technology for the
prevention and treatment of depression, and another is a program for conflict resolution under the leadership of Dr. James Carter, HarvardBeth Israel Deaconess
Medical Center. This countermeasure has a number of features that appear to make
it quite acceptable for astronaut use on a missionusing the astronauts familiarity and comfort with computer technologies, supplying confidentiality because
the astronaut can work through the program in the privacy of his or her quarters,
teaching coping methods, and focusing on prevention and early intervention to
avoid having problems spiral out of control. Evaluation and comparisons of this
and other innovative countermeasures in multinational contexts represent impor-
Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, supplement (2005): 135144.
202
tant next steps that need to be taken in the future. In our view, giving a high priority to research programs in the area of behavioral health will prove to be highly
beneficial for the safety of long-duration space missions.
203
About the Authors

Pamela J. Baskin graduated with her B.A. in biological sciences from the
University of Houston, Clear Lake, in 1997. She is currently working on her masters degree in industrial/organizational psychology at the University of Houston,
Clear Lake. She serves as the Lead Research Coordinator in the Behavioral
Health and Performance (BHP) research area at JSC and also serves as the Human
Research Program Analog Project Coordinator. She has assisted in the coordination of BHPs involvement with three NASA Extreme Environment Mission
Operations (NEEMO) missions. She is currently assisting with the coordination of
BHPs involvement in the 2008 Haughton-Mars Project and the 105-Day Russian
Chamber Study. She can be reached at pamela.baskins-1@nasa.gov, telephone 281212-1360, or at Wyle Integrated Science and Engineering Group, 1290 Hercules
Drive, Houston, TX 77058.
Sheryl L. Bishop graduated with her B.A. in psychology from the University
of Texas at San Antonio in 1982 and her Ph.D. in social psychology from the
University of Texas at Austin in 1989. She joined the faculty of the School of
Nursing at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) at Galveston in 1992
as a biostatistician. In 1995, she joined the School of Medicine at UTMB as a
member of the departments of Health and Safety Services, Family Medicine, and
eventually Preventive Medicine and Community Health, where she served as the
academic coordinator for graduate programs. She advanced to associate professor in
2000 and has been instrumental in the development of the NASA/UTMB Space
Medicine Fellowship, the Aerospace Medicine Residency program, and the Space
Life Sciences Ph.D. curriculum. Bishop returned to the School of Nursing as graduate faculty and senior biostatistician in 2007. She is also a full faculty member at the
International Space University, Strasbourg, France, contributing to the Summer
Session Program since 1994 and the Masters of Space Science Program since its
inception. Since 1990, Bishop has investigated human performance and group
dynamics in teams in extreme environments, including deep cavers, mountain
climbers, desert survival groups, polar expeditioners, and Antarctic winter-over
groups, and in numerous simulations of isolated, confined environments for
205
space. She has participated in various television documentaries and has over 60
publications and over 50 scholarly presentations in both the medical and psychological fields on topics as diverse as psychometric assessment, research methodology, outcomes research, psychosocial group dynamics, and human performance in
extreme environments. She is a senior associate editor and editorial board member for the Society for Human Performance in Extreme Environments and its journal, Human Performance in Extreme Environments, as well as the International Journal
of Earth Science, Life Support and Biosphere Science. She serves as review editor for
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine and Astra Astronautica and as grants
reviewer for the Canadian Space Agency. She can be reached at sbishop@utmb.
edu, telephone 409-772-8216, or at the School of Nursing, Rte. 1029, University of
Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX 77555.
Jennifer E. Boyd graduated with distinction from Stanford University with an

A.B. in psychology in 1989. She completed her M.A. and Ph.D. in clinical/community psychology at the University of Maryland, graduating in 1997. She finished
a three-year postdoctoral fellowship in the Psychiatric Epidemiology Training program at Columbia University in 2000. She worked as a researcher at the Center
for Health Care Evaluation at the Palo Alto Veterans Affairs (VA) and Stanford
University Medical Center from 2000 to 2002. In 2002, she joined the faculty at
the University of California, San Francisco. She is the founding director of the
Psychosocial Rehabilitation and Recovery Center at the San Francisco VA Medical
Center. Her research focuses on the influence of sociocultural factors on psychopathology and its detection, such as the influence of stigma on the course of psychosis, the effect of isolated and confined environments on mental health, and
the effect of culture on symptom patterns and the accuracy of assessment instruments. She can be reached at jennifer.boyd@ucsf.edu, telephone 415-221-4810, or
at the Department of Psychiatry, UCSF/VA Medical Center, 4150 Clement Street
(116A), San Francisco, CA 94121.
Lindi Cassel graduated from the University of British Columbia in 2005 with a
B.S. in psychology. Following graduation, she worked as a research assistant under Dr.
Peter Suedfeld, conducting research on diverse topics such as resilience in genocide
206
About the Authors
survivors, terrorism, political psychology, and personality factors contributing to successful human spaceflight. Her research has been published in the Journal of Positive
Psychology and Psychology Today. Cassel is completing her M.Sc. in occupational therapy at McMaster University and can be contacted at cassellj@mcmaster.ca.
Juris G. Draguns is professor emeritus of psychology at Pennsylvania State

University. Born in Latvia, he started his primary schooling in his native country,
graduated from high school in Germany, and completed his university studies in the
United States. He holds a B.A. degree from Utica College and a Ph.D. in clinical
psychology from the University of Rochester. His first two professional appointments
were as clinical and research psychologist at Rochester, New York, and Worcester,
Massachusetts, State Hospitals. He also lectured at the University of Rochester
and Clark University. For 30 years, he was a faculty member of Pennsylvania State
University as an associate and a full professor of psychology. Retired as professor
emeritus in 1997, he continues to be professionally active through private practice,
writing, lecturing, and research.
Draguns is author or coauthor of over 160 monographs, articles, and chapters
in psychology, psychiatry, and anthropology. He coedited Counseling Across Cultures
(in six editions); Defense Mechanisms: Theoretical, Research, and Clinical Perspectives
(in two editions); Handbook of Culture, Therapy, and Healing; Personality and Person
Perception Across Cultures; The Roots of Perception; and Psychological Processes in
Cognition and Personality.
Throughout his career, Draguns has cultivated international and cross-cultural contacts and has developed a network of international collaborators. He has taught and lectured, in six languages, in Germany, Sweden, Australia, Switzerland, Taiwan, Latvia,
and Mexico and has presented papers at congresses and conferences in 29 countries.
After the demise of the Soviet Union, Draguns participated in developing
undergraduate and graduate programs in psychology in Latvia. In 2006, he took part
in a site visit to the Psychology Department of the University of Kuwait. In 2001,
he received the American Psychological Associations Award for Distinguished
Contributions to the International Advancement of Psychology. In 2003, the
University of Latvia bestowed upon him the degree of doctor honoris causa; in
2005, he was elected president of the Society for Cross-Cultural Research; and in
207
2008, he received the Emeritus Distinction Award from the College of Liberal Arts
of Pennsylvania State University.
Draguns can be reached at the Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, PA 16802, or at jgd1@psu.edu, telephone 814-2381504, or fax 814-863-7002.
Edna R. Fiedler received her B.S. degree from Trinity University, San Antonio,
Texas, and her M.A. and Ph.D. in social psychology from the University of
Colorado. Subsequently, she went on for further training in clinical child psychology. She joined the faculty of the Department of Psychology, St. Marys University,
San Antonio, Texas, rising to the rank of professor and department chair. In 1989,
she became director of an Air Forcewide screening program that screened all
incoming recruits for psychopathology incompatible with a career in the military. She also was research director for the Neuropsychiatric Division of Wilford
Hall, Lackland Air Force Base. From 1998 to 2003, Fiedler was a branch manager at the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute, Federal Aviation Agency (FAA),
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The FAA position involved working closely with various national and international counterparts and committees. Currently, she serves
as the Health and Science Liaison for the National Space Biomedical Research
Institute (NSBRI) and is a faculty member of the Psychiatry Department, Baylor
College of Medicine. In this role, she coordinates efforts among NSBRI team leads
and NASAs research and operational elements. Fiedler regularly publishes in peerreviewed journals and has served on numerous academic and research committees.
Her honors include teaching and job performance awards at St. Marys University,
the FAA, and NASA. She is a member of the American Psychological Association
and the American Psychological Society. She can be reached at efiedler@bcm.edu or
NSBRI, Suite NA 425, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030.
Albert A. Harrison received his B.A. and M.A. in psychology from the
University of California, Santa Barbara, and his Ph.D. in social psychology from
the University of Michigan. In 1967, he joined the faculty of the Department of
Psychology at the University of California, Davis, and in 1979, he advanced to
professor. Now professor emeritus, he is the author or coauthor of approximately
208
About the Authors
100 papers in a wide range of journals, and his books include Living Aloft: Human
Requirements for Extended Spaceflight, From Antarctica to Outer Space: Life in Isolation
and Confinement, After Contact: The Human Response to Extraterrestrial Life, and
Spacefaring: The Human Dimension. His most recent book, Starstruck: Cosmic Visions
in Science, Religion, and Folklore, describes how rapidly accumulating scientific findings about our place in the universe are encouraging people to seek new answers to
old existential questions.
Harrison is a member of the Permanent SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial
Intelligence) Study Group of the International Academy of Astronautics, and
he was a member of NASAs Space Human Factors Engineering Science and
Technology Working Group. In December 2003, he was Principal Investigator of
a NASA-sponsored conference on new directions in behavioral health, and he
edited a special supplement on this topic for Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine. He is currently involved in planetary defense (protecting Earth from
asteroids and comets) and is heavily involved in the International Academy
of Astronautics Space Architecture Study Group, seeking new approaches to
human-centered design.
A former deputy U.S. editor of Systems Research and Behavioral Science, he
may be reached at aaharrison@ucdavis.edu, telephone 530-756-2361, or at the
Department of Psychology, One Shields Avenue, University of California Davis,
Davis, CA 95616.
Megan A. Kaminski received her B.S. in human factors psychology from

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and is currently in the masters program in
Human Factors and Applied Cognition at George Mason University. She has presented at the 2007 and 2008 Florida Student Conference for Human Factors and
Applied Psychology. She can be reached at meganannakaminski@yahoo.com.
Jason P. Kring received his B.A. in psychology from the University of

Colorado, Boulder; his M.S. in experimental psychology from Emporia State
University; and his Ph.D. in applied experimental and human factors psychology from the University of Central Florida. He has worked as a researcher at
the United States Army Research Institute in Orlando and interned at NASAs
209
Johnson Space Center in Houston, where he developed human factors recommendations related to the International Space Station. He is currently an assistant professor of human factors and systems at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in
Daytona Beach, Florida.
Kring serves as president of the Society for Human Performance in Extreme
Environments, an interdisciplinary forum for scientists, operational personnel,
and students with an interest and expertise in the area of human performance
and behavior in complex, high-stress environments. He also serves as editor of
the Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments and is codirector of the
Team Simulation and Gaming Laboratory at Embry-Riddle.
Kring has over 30 publications and 50 conference presentations representing
a wide range of research interests including performance in extreme and stressful
settings; the effects of cohesion, trust, and communication on team performance;
crew composition and interactions for long-duration spaceflight; aerospace human
factors; distributed team performance; and training applications of simulation and
virtual reality.
Gloria R. Leon, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of psychology in the Department

of Psychology at the University of Minnesota as of June 2006. Prior to that, she participated in both the clinical and personality doctoral training areas of the department and was an adjunct professor in the Institute of Child Development at the
University of Minnesota. She received her doctorate in mental health psychology from the University of Maryland. She was appointed assistant professor in the
Department of Psychology at the University of Minnesota in 1974; in addition to her
teaching and research activities, she served as assistant, associate, and, for 10 years,
director of the clinical psychology graduate program. She has conducted extensive
space analog research on personality, behavioral functioning, and team processes
of different polar expedition groups, studying teams composed of single-gender,
mixed-gender, and cross-national members. Leon has also carried out research on
groups who have experienced traumatic situations, including Vietnam combat and
nurse veterans and those impacted by the Chernobyl disaster. Leon continues to
be active in research and national and international activities in space and disaster
areas. She has been a member of several NASA committees and workshops focused
on behavioral health and human performance in space, NASA peer review panels,
210
About the Authors
the International Academy of Astronautics psychosocial committee, and program

committees for various space-related congresses. From 2004 to 2007, she was a member of the external advisory council of the NSBRI, advising the Neurobehavioral
and Psychosocial team, and currently serves on several Institute of Medicine committees dealing with the health of astronauts and others in extreme environments.
She is a board member and chair of the World Association for Disaster Medicines
international psychosocial task force to develop guidelines for responding to and
managing disasters, and she is on the editorial board of Prehospital and Disaster
Medicine.
Valerie A. Olson is a doctoral candidate in social/cultural anthropology

at Rice University. She is currently completing an ethnographic dissertation
on contemporary American astronautics culture, after conducting fieldwork at
NASA and the ESA and within the private space development sector. Using
coordinated case studies on space biomedicine, space analogs, space architecture, planetary science, and interplanetary mission design, her dissertation specifically analyzes how astronautics scientists and engineers understand and produce
knowledge about the human-environment relationship. From 2005 through 2007,
she served as an NSBRI research intern in support of behavioral health research.
She can be reached at valeriao@rice.edu.
Julie A. Robinson is the Program Scientist for the ISS at NASA JSC. She
serves as the chief scientist for the ISS Program, representing all ISS research
inside and outside the Agency. She provides recommendations regarding research
on the ISS to the ISS Program Manager and the Space Operations and Exploration
Systems Mission Directorates at NASA Headquarters.
Robinson has an interdisciplinary background in the physical and biological
sciences. Her professional experience has included research activities in a variety
of fields, including virology, analytical chemistry, genetics, statistics, field biology,
and remote sensing. She has authored over 50 scientific publications. She earned
a B.S. in chemistry and a B.S. in biology from Utah State University in 1989. She
earned a Ph.D. in ecology, evolution, and conservation biology from the University
of Nevada, Reno, in 1996.
211
She began her career in the Earth Science and Image Analysis Laboratory at
JSC (working for Lockheed Martin), serving as the Earth Science Applications
Lead. In this work, she collaborated with numerous ecologists and conservation
biologists in incorporating remote sensing data into their projects. She led the
development of the Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth on the World Wide
Web at http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov, which distributes hundreds of thousands of images of
Earth taken from orbit to scientists and the public each month. In 2004, she completed a major NASA-sponsored scientific project to develop global maps of coral
reefs from Landsat 7 data and facilitate a distribution network to make them accessible to natural resource managers. She was an editor of the book Dynamic Earth
Environments: Remote Sensing Observations from Shuttle-Mir Missions and continues
work on a remote sensing textbook.
In 2004, she joined NASA as a civil servant in the Office of the ISS Program
Scientist, where she led the development of a system for tracking ISS research and
results and provided the information to the public via the NASA Web portal. She
was named Deputy ISS Program Scientist in 2006 and Program Scientist in2007.
Gro Mjeldheim Sandal is a professor of psychology at the University of Bergen

in Norway. Since the early 1990s, she has been the Principal Investigator of largescale international research projects funded by the ESA and focused on psychological reactions during human spaceflights. These projects have included a number of
simulation studies of multinational crews isolated in hyperbaric chambers and personnel operating in other extreme environments (Antarctic research stations, polar
crossings, and military settings). She is currently leading one of the first psychological studies of resident crews on the ISS in collaboration with colleagues working for
the Russian Space Agency. Her recent research has focused on the implications of
individual and cultural differences in values for efficient coworking among crews in
space as well as among ground-based personnel. A major aim is to gain knowledge
that can be used for selection, training, and in-flight support.
Kelley J. Slack is an industrial/organizational psychologist working for

Wyle in the BHP group for NASA at JSC. As part of BHP since 2000, she is
involved in the psychological and psychiatric selection process for astronauts and
212
About the Authors
psychological preparedness and support of ISS astronauts. Her current research

involves Antarctica as an analog for long-duration spaceflight and competencies
necessary for successful Moon and Mars missions.
Slack attended the London School of Economics before receiving her B.A.
from Rice University. She received her M.A. in psychology and her Ph.D. in
industrial/organizational psychology with a minor in statistics from the University
ofHouston.
She may be reached at kslack@wylehou.com, telephone 281-212-1404, or at
Wyle Integrated Science and Engineering Group, 1290 Hercules Drive, Houston,
TX77058.
Peter Suedfeld was born in Hungary and immigrated to the United States after
World War II. After serving in the U.S. Army, he received his B.A. from Queens
College of the City University of New York and his M.A. and Ph.D. in experimental psychology from Princeton University. He taught at the University of Illinois
and Rutgers University prior to joining the University of British Columbia in 1972
as head of the Department of Psychology. He later became dean of the Faculty of
Graduate Studies, and he now holds emeritus status.
His research, published in seven books and over 270 book chapters and journal articles, has focused on the strengths of people as they cope during and after
experiencing extreme, unusual, challenging, and traumatic events and environments. His methodology has included laboratory experiments in profound stimulus reduction; fieldwork in the Antarctic and the High Arctic; and interview
and questionnaire studies with Holocaust survivors, prisoners in solitary confinement, and astronauts. More recently, he has been developing and applying methods of quantitative content analysis to archival material produced by individuals
in those groups as well as solitary sailors, early explorers, mountain climbers, and
high-level political and military leaders in situations of personal, national, and
internationalstress.
Suedfeld is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada (the National Academy),
the Canadian Psychological Association (president, 199091), the American
Psychological Association (six divisions), the Academy of Behavioral Medicine
Research, and other scientific organizations. He is a corresponding member of the
International Academy of Astronautics, and he is the only psychologist elected as
213
an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Canadian Geographical Society. He has received

the highest awards for scientific contributions from the Canadian Psychological
Association and the International Society of Political Psychology, as well as the
Antarctica Service Medal of the National Science Foundation and the Zachor
Award of the Parliament of Canada for contributions to Canadian society. He has
served on many advisory and consultative committees in the United States and
Canada and has chaired the Canadian Antarctic Research Program and the Life
Sciences Advisory Committee of the Canadian Space Agency.
Suedfeld can be reached at psuedfeld@psych.ubc.ca, telephone 604-822-5713, or
at the Department of Psychology, The University of British Columbia, 2136 West
Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.
Michael H. Trenchard graduated with his B.S. in meteorology from Texas

A&M University in 1973 and his M.S. in meteorology/climatology from Texas
A&M. He has worked as a government contractor in the fields of meteorology
and remote sensing in various NASA remote sensing programs at both Johnston
Space Center and Stennis Space Center, with an emphasis on agricultural and
commercial applications. Since 1995, he has worked in Crew Earth Observations
supporting both the Shuttle and International Space Station Programs. Activities
have included weather satellite imagery interpretation for on-orbit operations in
crew photography; crew training in weather- and climate-related observations from
space; and, more recently, the cataloging and interpretation of high-resolution,
hand-held imagery acquired by crews with digital camera systems. He is a member
of the American Meteorological Society and may be reached at mike.trenchard-1@
nasa.gov, telephone 281-483-5333.
Douglas A. Vakoch received his B.A. in religion from Carleton College, his
M.A. in history and philosophy of science from the University of Notre Dame, and
his M.A. and Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the State University of New York at
Stony Brook. After finishing his predoctoral clinical internship in health psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Hospital and Clinics, he completed
a National Research Service Award postdoctoral fellowship in the Department of
Psychology at Vanderbilt University. Following this fellowship, Vakoch joined the
214
About the Authors
SETI Institute, a nonprofit research organization in Silicon Valley, where he is

now the director of Interstellar Message Composition. He is also a professor in the
Department of Clinical Psychology at the California Institute of Integral Studies.
He is the editor of several forthcoming volumes, including Between Worlds: The
Art and Science of Interstellar Message Composition; Ecofeminism and Rhetoric: Critical
Perspectives on Sex, Technology, and Discourse; and (with Albert A. Harrison)
Civilizations beyond Earth: Extraterrestrial Life and Society.
Vakoch is chair of the International Academy of Astronautics Study Groups
on Interstellar Message Construction and Active SETI, and as a member of the
International Institute of Space Law, he examines policy issues related to interstellar
communication. He may be reached at dvakoch@seti.org, telephone 650-960-4514, or
at the Center for SETI Research, SETI Institute, 189 Bernardo Avenue, Suite100,
Mountain View, CA 94043; or at dvakoch@ciis.edu, telephone 415-575-6244, or at
the Department of Clinical Psychology, California Institute of Integral Studies, 1453
Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103.
Harvey Wichman received his B.A. and M.A. degrees from California State
University, Long Beach, and his Ph.D. in experimental psychology from Claremont
Graduate University. He was a member of the founding faculties of both Delta College
in Michigan and California State University in San Bernardino. He is professor emeritus at Claremont McKenna College (CMC) and Claremont Graduate University.
Trained in both neuroscience and social psychology, he is a graduate of NASAs
Biospace Technology Training Program at Wallops Island, Virginia. He conducts
research on the effects of working and living in extreme environments. As a Fellow
of the American Council on Education, he spent a year at the National Institutes of
Health. As a Sloan Foundation Fellow, he spent a year designing the International
Space Station with the team at Rockwell International in Downey, California, following which he served as a Faculty Fellow at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
Pasadena, California. He is the author of the book Human Factors in the Design of
Spacecraft, and he has published articles in journals such as the Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Space Life Sciences, Human Factors, and Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine. As director of CMCs Aerospace Psychology Laboratory, he
has conducted space research involving designing passenger compartments for civilian spaceflight on reusable McDonnell Douglas Aerospace (now Boeing Aerospace)
215
rockets for both orbital and suborbital flights. The CMC Aerospace Psychology
Laboratory has conducted research in simulated spaceflights and recently designed a
spaceflight simulator for the space museum at Alamogordo, New Mexico. He may be
reached at harvey@wichman.org, telephone 909-607-7986, or at Claremont Graduate
University, Harper Hall East, B5, 160 East Tenth Street, Claremont, CA 91711.
Kasia E. Wilk graduated from the University of British Columbia with her B.Sc.
in behavioral neuroscience, and she completed her M.Sc. degree in consciousness
and transpersonal psychology at John Moores University in Liverpool, England. She
has studied psychological effects amongst astronaut and cosmonaut crewmembers
during outer space missions in the Reactions to Environmental Stress and Trauma
(REST) laboratory of Dr. Peter Suedfeld in the Department of Psychology at the
University of British Columbia; she also has worked in other areas of psychology
research including twin personality traits and the effects of conditioned epileptical
seizures in rats. She is planning on pursuing a Ph.D. in transpersonal psychology and
hopes to work with various humanitarian organizations that help children in difficult environments. She is currently a researcher at the Youth Forensic Psychiatric
Services Research and Evaluation Department under the Ministry of Children and
Family Development in Burnaby, British Columbia, studying the effectiveness of
provincial treatment programs used in rehabilitating young offenders.
Kimberly J. Willis graduated with her B.S. in physical sciences and a concentration in geology from the University of Houston, Clear Lake, in 1982, and she was
granted her M.S. in 1986. She also earned an M.S. in secondary education from the
University of Houston, Clear Lake, in 1990 and holds a Lifetime Texas Provisional
Certification in secondary education, Earth science, and physical science. She joined
the Earth Observations group in 1990 and was responsible for the metadata assembly of the Earth-viewing photography taken by Space Shuttle astronauts. In 1991,
she became the task lead for metadata assembly of astronaut photography of Earth.
By 1996, Willis had conducted program planning, operations, and data analysis for
the NASA/Mir Earth Observations Program. She also established and documented
operational procedures for the Crew Earth Observations (CEO) on the ISS. At the
same time, she participated in Space Shuttle mission planning, astronaut training in
216
About the Authors
Earth science disciplines, and real-time Shuttle operations. She advanced to Project
Manager, Earth Observations, in 2001. In 2004, Willis developed and coordinated
all Earth science training plans and materials for Space Shuttle and Space Station
astronauts. Her duties included the management of all aspects of Earth science training and Earth science operations for the Space Shuttle and the ISS. Today, Willis is
the Section Manager over Astromaterials Research and Curation, which includes
the CEO group. Along with her administrative tasks, she is the task lead for CEO.
Willis is also adjunct faculty at the University of Houston, Clear Lake, where she
teaches fundamentals of Earth science. She can be reached at kim.willis-1@nasa.gov,
telephone 281-244-1215.
217
Acronyms and Abbreviations

AIAA
APA
BCPR
BHP
CEO
CIIS
CMC
CSA
EPICA
ESA
ESCG
ESTEC
EU
EUE
EVA
FAA
FMARS
FY
GENMOD
GLIMMIX
HMP
HRP
IAA
IGY
IKI
IRP
ISS
JSC
kph
LDM
LDSF
LEAPS
LIWC
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

American Psychological Association
Bioastronautics Critical Path Roadmap
Behavioral Health and Performance
Crew Earth Observations
California Institute of Integral Studies
Claremont McKenna College
Canadian Space Agency
European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica
European Space Agency
Engineering and Science Contract Group (NASA JSC)
European Space Research and Technology Centre
European Union
extreme unusual environment
extravehicular activity
Federal Aviation Agency
fiscal year
procedure for generalized linear models in SAS
generalized linear mixed models
Haughton-Mars Project
Human Research Program
International Academy of Astronautics
International Geophysical Year
Russian Institute for Space Research
Integrated Research Plan
International Space Station
Johnson Space Center
kilometers per hour
Long Duration Mission
long-duration spaceflight
Long-term Effects After Prolonged Spaceflight
Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count
219
MDRS
NASA
NEEMO
NEO-PI
NOAA
ns
NSBRI
NURC
PDA
REST
SAE
SBRI
SETI
SFINCSS
SIOP
SSEOP
SUNY
TCA
U.K.
UCLA
UTMB
VA
WET-F
WISE
220

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations
Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness to Experience
Personality Inventory
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
not significant
National Undersea Research Center
personal digital assistant
Reactions to Environmental Stress and Trauma
Society of Automotive Engineers
Space Biomedical Research Institute
Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence
Simulation of Flight of International Crew on Space Station
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychologists
Space Shuttle Earth Observations Project
State University of New York
Thematic Content Analysis
United Kingdom
University of California, Los Angeles
University of Texas Medical Branch
Veterans Affairs
Weightless Environmental Training Facility
Women in Space Earliest

REFERENCE WORKS
NASA SP-4000
Grimwood, James M. Project Mercury: A Chronology. NASA SP-4001, 1963.

Grimwood, James M., and Barton C. Hacker, with Peter J. Vorzimmer. Project
Gemini Technology and Operations: A Chronology. NASA SP-4002, 1969.
Link, Mae Mills. Space Medicine in Project Mercury. NASA SP-4003, 1965.
Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1963: Chronology of Science, Technology, and
Policy. NASA SP-4004, 1964.
Ertel, Ivan D., and Mary Louise Morse. The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology,
Volume I, Through November 7, 1962. NASA SP-4009, 1969.
Morse, Mary Louise, and Jean Kernahan Bays. The Apollo Spacecraft: A
Chronology, Volume II, November 8, 1962September 30, 1964. NASA
SP-4009, 1973.
Brooks, Courtney G., and Ivan D. Ertel. The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology,
Volume III, October 1, 1964January 20, 1966. NASA SP-4009, 1973.
Ertel, Ivan D., and Roland W. Newkirk, with Courtney G. Brooks. The Apollo
Spacecraft: A Chronology, Volume IV, January 21, 1966July 13, 1974.
NASA SP-4009, 1978.
Newkirk, Roland W., and Ivan D. Ertel, with Courtney G. Brooks. Skylab: A
Chronology. NASA SP-4011, 1977.
221
Van Nimmen, Jane, and Leonard C. Bruno, with Robert L. Rosholt. NASA
Historical Data Book, Volume I: NASA Resources, 19581968. NASA
SP-4012, 1976, rep. ed. 1988.
Ezell, Linda Neuman. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume II: Programs and
Projects, 19581968. NASA SP-4012, 1988.
Ezell, Linda Neuman. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume III: Programs and
Projects, 19691978. NASA SP-4012, 1988.
Gawdiak, Ihor, with Helen Fedor. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume IV: NASA
Resources, 19691978. NASA SP-4012, 1994.
Rumerman, Judy A. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume V: NASA Launch
Systems, Space Transportation, Human Spaceflight, and Space Science, 1979
1988. NASA SP-4012, 1999.
Rumerman, Judy A. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume VI: NASA Space
Applications, Aeronautics and Space Research and Technology, Tracking and Data
Acquisition/Support Operations, Commercial Programs, and Resources, 1979
1988. NASA SP-4012, 1999.
Rumerman, Judy A. NASA Historical Data Book, Volume VII: NASA Launch
Systems, Space Transportation, Human Spaceflight, and Space Science, 1989
1998. NASA SP-2009-4012, 2009.
No SP-4013.
Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1969: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy.
NASA SP-4014, 1970.
NASA SP-4015, 1972.
NASA SP-4016, 1972.
NASA SP-4017, 1974.
NASA SP-4018, 1975.
NASA SP-4019, 1977.
NASA SP-4020, 1979.
222

NASA SP-4021, 1984.
NASA SP-4022, 1986.
NASA SP-4023, 1986.
NASA SP-4025, 1990.
Noordung, Hermann. The Problem of Space Travel: The Rocket Motor. Edited by Ernst
Stuhlinger and J. D. Hunley, with Jennifer Garland. NASA SP-4026, 1995.
Astronautics and Aeronautics, 19861990: A Chronology. NASA SP-4027, 1997.
Astronautics and Aeronautics, 19911995: A Chronology. NASA SP-2000-4028,
2000.
Orloff, Richard W. Apollo by the Numbers: A Statistical Reference. NASA SP-20004029, 2000.
Lewis, Marieke, and Ryan Swanson. Astronautics and Aeronautics: A Chronology,
19962000. NASA SP-2009-4030, 2009.
Ivey, William Noel, and Ryan Swanson. Astronautics and Aeronautics: A
Chronology, 20012005. NASA SP-2010-4031, 2010.
MANAGEMENT HISTORIES
NASA SP-4100
Rosholt, Robert L. An Administrative History of NASA, 19581963. NASA

SP-4101, 1966.
Levine, Arnold S. Managing NASA in the Apollo Era. NASA SP-4102, 1982.
Roland, Alex. Model Research: The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics,
19151958. NASA SP-4103, 1985.
Fries, Sylvia D. NASA Engineers and the Age of Apollo. NASA SP-4104, 1992.
Glennan, T. Keith. The Birth of NASA: The Diary of T. Keith Glennan. Edited by
J.D. Hunley. NASA SP-4105, 1993.
223
Seamans, Robert C. Aiming at Targets: The Autobiography of Robert C. Seamans.

NASA SP-4106, 1996.
Garber, Stephen J., ed. Looking Backward, Looking Forward: Forty Years of Human
Spaceflight Symposium. NASA SP-2002-4107, 2002.
Mallick, Donald L., with Peter W. Merlin. The Smell of Kerosene: A Test Pilots
Odyssey. NASA SP-4108, 2003.
Iliff, Kenneth W., and Curtis L. Peebles. From Runway to Orbit: Reflections of a
NASA Engineer. NASA SP-2004-4109, 2004.
Chertok, Boris. Rockets and People, Volume I. NASA SP-2005-4110, 2005.
Chertok, Boris. Rockets and People: Creating a Rocket Industry, Volume II. NASA
SP-2006-4110, 2006.
Chertok, Boris. Rockets and People: Hot Days of the Cold War, Volume III. NASA
SP-2009-4110, 2009.
Laufer, Alexander, Todd Post, and Edward Hoffman. Shared Voyage: Learning and
Unlearning from Remarkable Projects. NASA SP-2005-4111, 2005.
Dawson, Virginia P., and Mark D. Bowles. Realizing the Dream of Flight:
Biographical Essays in Honor of the Centennial of Flight, 19032003. NASA
SP-2005-4112, 2005.
Mudgway, Douglas J. William H. Pickering: Americas Deep Space Pioneer. NASA
SP-2008-4113, 2008.
PROJECT HISTORIES
NASA SP-4200
Swenson, Loyd S., Jr., James M. Grimwood, and Charles C. Alexander. This New
Ocean: A History of Project Mercury. NASA SP-4201, 1966; rep. ed. 1999.
Green, Constance McLaughlin, and Milton Lomask. Vanguard: A History. NASA
SP-4202, 1970; rep. ed. Smithsonian Institution Press, 1971.
Hacker, Barton C., and James M. Grimwood. On the Shoulders of Titans: A History
of Project Gemini. NASA SP-4203, 1977; rep. ed. 2002.
Benson, Charles D., and William Barnaby Faherty. Moonport: A History of Apollo
Launch Facilities and Operations. NASA SP-4204, 1978.
Brooks, Courtney G., James M. Grimwood, and Loyd S. Swenson, Jr. Chariots for
Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft. NASA SP-4205, 1979.
224
Bilstein, Roger E. Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn

Launch Vehicles. NASA SP-4206, 1980 and 1996.
No SP-4207.
Compton, W. David, and Charles D. Benson. Living and Working in Space: A
History of Skylab. NASA SP-4208, 1983.
Ezell, Edward Clinton, and Linda Neuman Ezell. The Partnership: A History of the
Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. NASA SP-4209, 1978.
Hall, R. Cargill. Lunar Impact: A History of Project Ranger. NASA SP-4210, 1977.
Newell, Homer E. Beyond the Atmosphere: Early Years of Space Science. NASA
SP-4211, 1980.
Ezell, Edward Clinton, and Linda Neuman Ezell. On Mars: Exploration of the Red
Planet, 19581978. NASA SP-4212, 1984.
Pitts, John A. The Human Factor: Biomedicine in the Manned Space Program to
1980. NASA SP-4213, 1985.
Compton, W. David. Where No Man Has Gone Before: A History of Apollo Lunar
Exploration Missions. NASA SP-4214, 1989.
Naugle, John E. First Among Equals: The Selection of NASA Space Science
Experiments. NASA SP-4215, 1991.
Wallace, Lane E. Airborne Trailblazer: Two Decades with NASA Langleys 737
Flying Laboratory. NASA SP-4216, 1994.
Butrica, Andrew J., ed. Beyond the Ionosphere: Fifty Years of Satellite
Communications. NASA SP-4217, 1997.
Butrica, Andrew J. To See the Unseen: A History of Planetary Radar Astronomy.
NASA SP-4218, 1996.
Mack, Pamela E., ed. From Engineering Science to Big Science: The NACA and
NASA Collier Trophy Research Project Winners. NASA SP-4219, 1998.
Reed, R. Dale. Wingless Flight: The Lifting Body Story. NASA SP-4220, 1998.
Heppenheimer, T. A. The Space Shuttle Decision: NASAs Search for a Reusable
Space Vehicle. NASA SP-4221, 1999.
Hunley, J. D., ed. Toward Mach 2: The Douglas D-558 Program. NASA SP-4222,
1999.
Swanson, Glen E., ed. Before This Decade Is Out . . . Personal Reflections on the
Apollo Program. NASA SP-4223, 1999.
Tomayko, James E. Computers Take Flight: A History of NASAs Pioneering Digital
Fly-By-Wire Project. NASA SP-4224, 2000.
225
Morgan, Clay. Shuttle-Mir: The United States and Russia Share Historys Highest
Stage. NASA SP-2001-4225, 2001.
Leary, William M. We Freeze to Please: A History of NASAs Icing Research
Tunnel and the Quest for Safety. NASA SP-2002-4226, 2002.
Mudgway, Douglas J. Uplink-Downlink: A History of the Deep Space Network,
19571997. NASA SP-2001-4227, 2001.
No SP-4228 or SP-4229.
Dawson, Virginia P., and Mark D. Bowles. Taming Liquid Hydrogen: The Centaur
Upper Stage Rocket, 19582002. NASA SP-2004-4230, 2004.
Meltzer, Michael. Mission to Jupiter: A History of the Galileo Project. NASA
SP-2007-4231, 2007.
Heppenheimer, T. A. Facing the Heat Barrier: A History of Hypersonics. NASA
SP-2007-4232, 2007.
Tsiao, Sunny. Read You Loud and Clear! The Story of NASAs Spaceflight Tracking
and Data Network. NASA SP-2007-4233, 2007.
CENTER HISTORIES
NASA SP-4300
Rosenthal, Alfred. Venture into Space: Early Years of Goddard Space Flight Center.
NASA SP-4301, 1985.
Hartman, Edwin P. Adventures in Research: A History of Ames Research Center,
19401965. NASA SP-4302, 1970.
Hallion, Richard P. On the Frontier: Flight Research at Dryden, 19461981. NASA
SP-4303, 1984.
Muenger, Elizabeth A. Searching the Horizon: A History of Ames Research Center,
19401976. NASA SP-4304, 1985.
Hansen, James R. Engineer in Charge: A History of the Langley Aeronautical
Laboratory, 19171958. NASA SP-4305, 1987.
Dawson, Virginia P. Engines and Innovation: Lewis Laboratory and American
Propulsion Technology. NASA SP-4306, 1991.
Dethloff, Henry C. Suddenly Tomorrow Came . . .: A History of the Johnson Space
Center, 19571990. NASA SP-4307, 1993.
226
Hansen, James R. Spaceflight Revolution: NASA Langley Research Center from

Sputnik to Apollo. NASA SP-4308, 1995.
Wallace, Lane E. Flights of Discovery: An Illustrated History of the Dryden Flight
Research Center. NASA SP-4309, 1996.
Herring, Mack R. Way Station to Space: A History of the John C. Stennis Space
Center. NASA SP-4310, 1997.
Wallace, Harold D., Jr. Wallops Station and the Creation of an American Space
Program. NASA SP-4311, 1997.
Wallace, Lane E. Dreams, Hopes, Realities. NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center:
The First Forty Years. NASA SP-4312, 1999.
Dunar, Andrew J., and Stephen P. Waring. Power to Explore: A History of Marshall
Space Flight Center, 19601990. NASA SP-4313, 1999.
Bugos, Glenn E. Atmosphere of Freedom: Sixty Years at the NASA Ames Research
Center. NASA SP-2000-4314, 2000.
No SP-4315.
Schultz, James. Crafting Flight: Aircraft Pioneers and the Contributions of the Men
and Women of NASA Langley Research Center. NASA SP-2003-4316, 2003.
Bowles, Mark D. Science in Flux: NASAs Nuclear Program at Plum Brook Station,
19552005. NASA SP-2006-4317, 2006.
Wallace, Lane E. Flights of Discovery: An Illustrated History of the Dryden Flight Research
Center. NASA SP-2007-4318, 2007. Revised version of NASA SP-4309.
Arrighi, Robert S. Revolutionary Atmosphere: The Story of the Altitude Wind Tunnel
and the Space Power Chambers. NASA SP-2010-4319, 2010.
GENERAL HISTORIES
NASA SP-4400
Corliss, William R. NASA Sounding Rockets, 19581968: A Historical Summary.

NASA SP-4401, 1971.
Wells, Helen T., Susan H. Whiteley, and Carrie Karegeannes. Origins of NASA
Names. NASA SP-4402, 1976.
Anderson, Frank W., Jr. Orders of Magnitude: A History of NACA and NASA,
19151980. NASA SP-4403, 1981.
227
Sloop, John L. Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel, 19451959. NASA SP-4404,

1978.
Roland, Alex. A Spacefaring People: Perspectives on Early Spaceflight. NASA
SP-4405, 1985.
Bilstein, Roger E. Orders of Magnitude: A History of the NACA and NASA, 1915
1990. NASA SP-4406, 1989.
Logsdon, John M., ed., with Linda J. Lear, Jannelle Warren Findley, Ray A.
Williamson, and Dwayne A. Day. Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents
in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume I: Organizing for
Exploration. NASA SP-4407, 1995.
Logsdon, John M., ed., with Dwayne A. Day and Roger D. Launius. Exploring the
Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program,
Volume II: External Relationships. NASA SP-4407, 1996.
Logsdon, John M., ed., with Roger D. Launius, David H. Onkst, and Stephen J.
Garber. Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S.
Civil Space Program, Volume III: Using Space. NASA SP-4407, 1998.
Logsdon, John M., ed., with Ray A. Williamson, Roger D. Launius, Russell J.
Acker, Stephen J. Garber, and Jonathan L. Friedman. Exploring the Unknown:
Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume IV:
Accessing Space. NASA SP-4407, 1999.
Logsdon, John M., ed., with Amy Paige Snyder, Roger D. Launius, Stephen
J. Garber, and Regan Anne Newport. Exploring the Unknown: Selected
Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume V: Exploring
the Cosmos. NASA SP-2001-4407, 2001.
Logsdon, John M., ed., with Stephen J. Garber, Roger D. Launius, and Ray A.
Williamson. Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of
the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume VI: Space and Earth Science. NASA
SP-2004-4407, 2004.
Logsdon, John M., ed., with Roger D. Launius. Exploring the Unknown: Selected
Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume VII: Human
Spaceflight: Projects Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. NASA SP-2008-4407, 2008.
Siddiqi, Asif A., Challenge to Apollo: The Soviet Union and the Space Race, 1945
1974. NASA SP-2000-4408, 2000.
Hansen, James R., ed. The Wind and Beyond: Journey into the History of Aerodynamics
in America, Volume 1: The Ascent of the Airplane. NASA SP-2003-4409, 2003.
228
Hansen, James R., ed. The Wind and Beyond: Journey into the History of
Aerodynamics in America, Volume 2: Reinventing the Airplane. NASA SP-20074409, 2007.
Hogan, Thor. Mars Wars: The Rise and Fall of the Space Exploration Initiative.
NASA SP-2007-4410, 2007.
M O N O G R A P H S I N A E R O S PA C E H I S T O RY
NASA SP-4500
Launius, Roger D., and Aaron K. Gillette, comps. Toward a History of the Space
Shuttle: An Annotated Bibliography. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 1,
1992.
Launius, Roger D., and J. D. Hunley, comps. An Annotated Bibliography of the
Apollo Program. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 2, 1994.
Launius, Roger D. Apollo: A Retrospective Analysis. Monographs in Aerospace
History, No. 3, 1994.
Hansen, James R. Enchanted Rendezvous: John C. Houbolt and the Genesis of the
Lunar-Orbit Rendezvous Concept. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 4,
1995.
Gorn, Michael H. Hugh L. Drydens Career in Aviation and Space. Monographs in
Aerospace History, No. 5, 1996.
Powers, Sheryll Goecke. Women in Flight Research at NASA Dryden Flight Research
Center from 1946 to 1995. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 6, 1997.
Portree, David S. F., and Robert C. Trevino. Walking to Olympus: An EVA
Chronology. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 7, 1997.
Logsdon, John M., moderator. Legislative Origins of the National Aeronautics and
Space Act of 1958: Proceedings of an Oral History Workshop. Monographs in
Rumerman, Judy A., comp. U.S. Human Spaceflight: A Record of Achievement,
19611998. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 9, 1998.
Portree, David S. F. NASAs Origins and the Dawn of the Space Age. Monographs in
Logsdon, John M. Together in Orbit: The Origins of International Cooperation in the
Space Station. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 11, 1998.
229
Phillips, W. Hewitt. Journey in Aeronautical Research: A Career at NASA Langley

Research Center. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 12, 1998.
Braslow, Albert L. A History of Suction-Type Laminar-Flow Control with Emphasis
on Flight Research. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 13, 1999.
Logsdon, John M., moderator. Managing the Moon Program: Lessons Learned from
Apollo. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 14, 1999.
Perminov, V. G. The Difficult Road to Mars: A Brief History of Mars Exploration in
the Soviet Union. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 15, 1999.
Tucker, Tom. Touchdown: The Development of Propulsion Controlled Aircraft at
NASA Dryden. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 16, 1999.
Maisel, Martin, Demo J. Giulanetti, and Daniel C. Dugan. The History of the
XV-15 Tilt Rotor Research Aircraft: From Concept to Flight. Monographs in
Aerospace History, No. 17, 2000. NASA SP-2000-4517.
Jenkins, Dennis R. Hypersonics Before the Shuttle: A Concise History of the X-15
Research Airplane. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 18, 2000. NASA
SP-2000-4518.
Chambers, Joseph R. Partners in Freedom: Contributions of the Langley Research
Center to U.S. Military Aircraft of the 1990s. Monographs in Aerospace
History, No. 19, 2000. NASA SP-2000-4519.
Waltman, Gene L. Black Magic and Gremlins: Analog Flight Simulations at NASAs
Flight Research Center. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 20, 2000.
NASA SP-2000-4520.
Portree, David S. F. Humans to Mars: Fifty Years of Mission Planning, 19502000.
Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 21, 2001. NASA SP-2001-4521.
Thompson, Milton O., with J. D. Hunley. Flight Research: Problems Encountered
and What They Should Teach Us. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 22,
2001. NASA SP-2001-4522.
Tucker, Tom. The Eclipse Project. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 23, 2001.
NASA SP-2001-4523.
Siddiqi, Asif A. Deep Space Chronicle: A Chronology of Deep Space and Planetary
Probes, 19582000. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 24, 2002. NASA
SP-2002-4524.
Merlin, Peter W. Mach 3+: NASA/USAF YF-12 Flight Research, 19691979.
230
Anderson, Seth B. Memoirs of an Aeronautical Engineer: Flight Tests at Ames

Research Center: 19401970. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 26,
2002. NASA SP-2002-4526.
Renstrom, Arthur G. Wilbur and Orville Wright: A Bibliography Commemorating the
One-Hundredth Anniversary of the First Powered Flight on December 17, 1903.
No monograph 28.
Chambers, Joseph R. Concept to Reality: Contributions of the NASA Langley
Research Center to U.S. Civil Aircraft of the 1990s. Monographs in Aerospace
Peebles, Curtis, ed. The Spoken Word: Recollections of Dryden History, The
Early Years. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 30, 2003. NASA
SP-2003-4530.
Jenkins, Dennis R., Tony Landis, and Jay Miller. American X-Vehicles: An
InventoryX-1 to X-50. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 31, 2003.
NASA SP-2003-4531.
Renstrom, Arthur G. Wilbur and Orville Wright: A Chronology Commemorating the
One-Hundredth Anniversary of the First Powered Flight on December 17, 1903.
Bowles, Mark D., and Robert S. Arrighi. NASAs Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook
Research Reactor. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 33, 2004. NASA
SP-2004-4533.
Wallace, Lane, and Christian Gelzer. Nose Up: High Angle-of-Attack and Thrust
Vectoring Research at NASA Dryden, 19792001. Monographs in Aerospace
Matranga, Gene J., C. Wayne Ottinger, Calvin R. Jarvis, and D. Christian Gelzer.
Unconventional, Contrary, and Ugly: The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle.
McCurdy, Howard E. Low-Cost Innovation in Spaceflight: The History of the Near
Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) Mission. Monographs in Aerospace
Seamans, Robert C., Jr. Project Apollo: The Tough Decisions. Monographs in
Lambright, W. Henry. NASA and the Environment: The Case of Ozone Depletion.
231
Chambers, Joseph R. Innovation in Flight: Research of the NASA Langley Research

Center on Revolutionary Advanced Concepts for Aeronautics. Monographs in
Phillips, W. Hewitt. Journey into Space Research: Continuation of a Career at NASA
Langley Research Center. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 40, 2005.
NASA SP-2005-4540.
Rumerman, Judy A., Chris Gamble, and Gabriel Okolski, comps. U.S. Human
Spaceflight: A Record of Achievement, 19612006. Monographs in Aerospace
Dick, Steven J., Stephen J. Garber, and Jane H. Odom. Research in NASA History.
Merlin, Peter W. Ikhana: Unmanned Aircraft System Western States Fire Missions.
Fisher, Steven C., and Shamim A. Rahman. Remembering the Giants: Apollo
Rocket Propulsion Development. Monographs in Aerospace History, No. 45,
2009. NASA SP-2009-4545.
ELECTRONIC MEDIA
NASA SP-4600
Remembering Apollo 11: The 30th Anniversary Data Archive CD-ROM. NASA
SP-4601, 1999.
Remembering Apollo 11: The 35th Anniversary Data Archive CD-ROM. NASA
SP-2004-4601, 2004. This is an update of the 1999 edition.
The Mission Transcript Collection: U.S. Human Spaceflight Missions from Mercury
Redstone 3 to Apollo 17. NASA SP-2000-4602, 2001.
Shuttle-Mir: The United States and Russia Share Historys Highest Stage. NASA
SP-2001-4603, 2002.
U.S. Centennial of Flight Commission Presents Born of DreamsInspired by
Freedom. NASA SP-2004-4604, 2004.
Of Ashes and Atoms: A Documentary on the NASA Plum Brook Reactor Facility.
NASA SP-2005-4605, 2005.
Taming Liquid Hydrogen: The Centaur Upper Stage Rocket Interactive CD-ROM.
NASA SP-2004-4606, 2004.
232
Fueling Space Exploration: The History of NASAs Rocket Engine Test Facility DVD.
NASA SP-2005-4607, 2005.
Altitude Wind Tunnel at NASA Glenn Research Center: An Interactive History
CD-ROM. NASA SP-2008-4608, 2008.
A Tunnel Through Time: The History of NASAs Altitude Wind Tunnel. NASA
SP-2010-4609, 2010.
CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
NASA SP-4700
Dick, Steven J., and Keith Cowing, eds. Risk and Exploration: Earth, Sea and the
Stars. NASA SP-2005-4701, 2005.
Dick, Steven J., and Roger D. Launius. Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight.
NASA SP-2006-4702, 2006.
Dick, Steven J., ed. Remembering the Space Age: Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary
Conference. NASA SP-2008-4703, 2008.
Dick, Steven J., ed. NASAs First 50 Years: Historical Perspectives. NASA SP-20104704, 2010.
S O C I E TA L I M PA C T
NASA SP-4800
Dick, Steven J., and Roger D. Launius. Societal Impact of Spaceflight. NASA
SP-2007-4801, 2007.
Dick, Steven J., and Mark L. Lupisella. Cosmos and Culture: Cultural Evolution in
a Cosmic Context. NASA SP-2009-4802, 2009.
233
Subject Index
Able (monkey), 1819
Activities
docking, 80, 87, 90, 93, 146
extravehicular activities (EVA), 4, 80,
87, 90, 93, 95, 150
self-initiated, 80, 85, 8788, 90100
training, 77, 8183, 147, 149, 151,
153154, 173
Adaptation factors, 8, 26, 36, 43, 5354, 59,
61, 67, 7173
automation complexity, 56
cohesion, 14, 56, 58, 67, 154
confinement, 2, 49, 52, 5455, 5859,
61, 6667, 69, 7173, 75, 169
confusion, 56, 72
coping, 52, 57, 5960, 70, 73, 144, 160
161, 166167, 169, 171, 174, 199
crew heterogeneity, 56
cultural differences, 56, 6364, 152, 170,
180182, 188191, 193194, 197
differential situational reality, 6566
fatigue, 56, 70, 72
group, 3, 8, 11, 14, 17, 2223, 152153,
157, 159, 167, 169170, 172173
individual, 198
interpersonal conflict, 9, 50, 56, 5859,
6365
isolation, 2, 49, 52, 5455, 5859, 61,
67, 7073, 75, 153, 168169
language differences, 56
microsociety, 9, 66
motivation, 56, 60, 67, 70, 146, 156
pathology, 59
personality, 53, 5657, 6061, 151,
154155, 174
physical danger, 56
privacy, 58
returnability, 65, 198
risk, 47, 52, 54, 56, 62, 66, 77
social isolation, 54, 58, 168
stress, 5253, 5657, 60, 70, 73, 147

148, 169, 171, 173, 198
subjectivization of time, 6566
withdrawal, 27, 58
Aerospace medicine, 8
Aerospace Psychology Laboratory, 109, 122
Affirmative Action, 3841. See also Equal
Employment Opportunity
Agreeableness, 60
Air Force, U.S., 29, 39
Airlock, 110111
American Psychiatric Association, 37
American Psychological Association, ix
Division of Engineering Psychology, 4
Monitor on Psychology, vii
Ames Research Center, Moffett Field,
California, 67, 74
Amundsen, Roald, 54
Analog environments, 1314, 21, 105
advantages and limitations, 4749, 51,
55, 58
defined, 4748
simulations and, 48, 51, 71, 201
types, 49, 57, 6276
Analogs. See space analogs
Anecdotal evidence, 149
Animals, 1719
retrieval of, 19
Annes, C. A., 36
Ansari X Prize, 104
Antarctic Plateau, 73
Antarctica, 2021, 29, 51, 5355, 7173, 126,
127, 196
Apollo, 1112, 20, 24, 2627, 29, 38, 6566,
8182, 104, 108, 146, 177181
Apollo 11, 1112, 6566
Apollo 13, 6566
Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, 20, 38,
177178, 180182
Applications Program, 20
235
Aquarius (underwater habitat), 70

Archimedes, 48
Architecture, 15, 125
Arctic, 65, 71, 7475
Armstrong, Neil, 48
Asteroids, 126, 130, 141, 175
Astronaut selection, 1, 6, 10, 3336, 38,
4041, 145146, 198
changing procedures, 3437, 202
criteria for, 5859, 6667, 7678
history of, 17, 33
interviews, 38
psychiatrys role in, 36
psychological testing, 3438, 202
Astronaut training, 2425, 38, 181, 185
cross-cultural, 184185
families and, 42
psychological and interpersonal, 42
Astronautrix, 25
Astronauts
attitudes toward psychology, 25, 31
Canadian, 180
cultural characteristics of, 177
European, 179180
as exceptional individuals, 192
female, in international space missions,
125, 129
gender, 56, 68, 71, 75, 125, 128, 130
132, 140141
German, 179
Japanese, 180
Korean, 180
Mercury, 4, 24, 27, 34
Mir, 26
multinational, 49, 55, 77
preparation of, for international
missions, 75, 77
women, 25, 3839
Astro-nettes, 25
Australia, 146
Australian National Antarctic Research
Expeditions, 21
Aviation human factors, 4, 16
236
Baker (monkey), 1819

Bales, R. F., 112, 116
Bales Interaction Analysis, 112, 116
Balloons, high altitude, 17
Bardi, A., 190
Baskin, Pamela, 13, 205
Bates Harris, Ruth. See Harris, Ruth Bates
Baum, Andrew, 120
Behavioral health, 7, 14, 22, 44
conference on new directions in, 31
isolation, 49, 52, 5455, 5859, 61, 67,
7073, 75, 86
NASA, perspectives on, 67, 10, 198
personal growth, 86
psychological, 80, 8688, 100101
Behavioral Health and Performance Program,
10, 30, 44, 183
Belgica, 54
Bell, Paul A., 120
Bergerac, Cyrano de, 144
Berry, Charles A., 8
Bigelow, Robert, 104, 119
Bigelow Aerospace, 119
Big-eye, 71
Bioastronautics Critical Path Roadmap, 17,
29, 43
Bishop, Sheryl, 13, 132, 140, 202, 205206
Boyd, Jennifer, 13, 206. See also Ritsher,
Jennifer Boyd
Brady, Joseph V., 7, 1819
Braun, Wernher von. See von Braun,
Wernher
Brislin, R. W., 187
Bulgaria, 179
Burrough, Bryan, 26, 181
Bush, George W., 126, 174
Bystander intervention, 121
California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS),
ix
Canada, 74, 146, 157, 174
Canadian Arctic, 74
Canadian Space Agency (CSA), 74
Subject Index
Capsule habitat, 53, 55, 6870

Cassel, Lindi, 14, 199, 206207
Cernan, Eugene, 26
Challenger (Royal Navy), 63
Challenger (Space Shuttle), 16, 41, 47, 197
Chamber research, 48, 5153, 55, 59, 6668
Chapanis, Alphonse, 5, 7
Chernobyl, 5
Chile, 71
Choosing the Right Stuff (Patricia Santy), 35
Chrtien, Jean-Loup, 149150, 179
Civilian simulated spaceflight, 15, 31
Claremont McKenna College Aerospace
Psychology Laboratory, 109, 122
Clinton, William Jefferson, 20
Cochran, Jackie, 39
Cognition, 10, 14, 26, 44, 168, 182
Cohesion, 131133, 136, 154
and additive tasks, 135, 137
and disjunctive tasks, 135, 137
interpersonal, 56, 58, 67, 129, 134,
137139, 200
task, 14, 129, 134, 137, 200
Cold War, 144, 154, 178
Collectivism-individualism, 159, 185, 188, 190
Collins, Eileen, 41, 130
Collins, Michael, 25
Columbia (Space Shuttle), 13, 16, 47, 84, 177,
179, 197
Committee on Creating a Vision for Space
Medicine During Travel Beyond Earth
Orbit, 11
Communication, 49, 50, 62, 152
nonverbal cues, 127128
organizational roles, 127
personality, 127
team, 5556, 5960, 68, 75
Computers, 5, 12, 44, 202
Concordia (Antarctic station), 7374, 196
Confidentiality, 25
Confinement, 49, 52, 5455, 5859, 61,
6667, 69, 7173, 75, 125, 169
laboratories, 6668
Conflict
interpersonal, 132, 140
resolution, 50
Connery, H., 71
Connors, Mary M., 9, 11, 33
Conrad, Pete, 108
Conscientiousness, 60
Control group, 111, 114115
Cook, Captain James, 63
Cooper, H. S. F., 27
Copernicus, Nicolaus, 48
Coping strategies, 52, 57, 5960, 70, 73, 160,
166167, 171, 202
Accept Responsibility, 161, 167, 171
Compartmentalization, 161
Confrontation, 161, 167
Denial, 161, 167, 171172
Distancing, 161
Endurance/Obedience/Effort, 161
Escape/Avoidance, 161, 167, 171172
Planful Problem Solving, 161, 167,
169
Positive Reappraisal, 161
Seeking Social Support, 161, 167, 169
Self-Control, 161
Supernatural Protection, 160161, 167,
171
Cosmonauts
astronauts and, 3839
diaries, use of, 32, 50
as exceptional individuals, 192
guest. See Interkosmos
in joint missions with astronauts, 177
mental health of, 29
space station, 26
Costa, P. T., Jr., 60
Countermeasures, 10, 198199, 202
Crew composition, 1, 3, 1112, 125, 127,
147148, 195
culture, 6364, 68, 128, 177, 201
gender, 14, 56, 71, 75, 130132, 137
140, 180, 201
size, 1, 1112, 127
237
Crew dynamics, 126, 201

cohesion, 56, 58, 67, 131133,
136139
communication, 4950, 62
composition, 77, 125, 130
conflict, 128, 132, 140
decision making, 50, 62, 128, 130
group size, 127128
leadership, 51, 56, 59, 137, 139
Crew Earth Observation, 79101
Crews, international, 75, 77
Critical incidents, 187
cross-cultural, in space, 68
Cross-cultural issues, 14, 179, 182, 193
Cross-cultural psychology, 177178, 183
definition of, 183184
origins of, 178
in space missions, 202
value of international observations in
space for, 193194
Crowding, 106, 118
Cuba, 179
Cultural characteristics, 38, 125, 188192
American, 177, 184185, 188, 191
Japanese, 188189, 191192
Russian, 188191
Culture, 3, 22, 152155, 159, 173, 181183,
187190
conflict, 11, 27, 128, 197
definition of, 183
dimensions of, 182, 187188, 191192
effects on spaceflight, 197, 200
incidents during international
spaceflights, 128
subjective and objective, 185, 187
Culture assimilator, 14, 177, 184185
description of, 184
in preparing astronauts for
international space missions,
184185
in promoting anticipatory culture
learning, 185
specific aspects of, 184185
238
Cunningham, Walter, 28
da Vinci, Leonardo, 155
Daedalus and Icarus, 48, 144
Darley, John, 121
Data analysis, 115
index of amicability, 115
Database, behavioral, 44
de Bergerac, Cyrano. See Bergerac, Cyrano de
Decision aids, computer, 13
Delta Clipper, 108
Density intensity hypothesis, 112, 116
Devon Island, 74
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual III, 37
Dialogue between psychologists and
historians, vii
Discovery (Space Shuttle), 125126
Discovery Channel Canada, 74
Division of Engineering Psychology,
American Psychological Association, 4
Division of Polar Programs, National Science
Foundation, 21
Dome C, 73
Dominion Explorers, 65
Douglas, William K., 28
Draguns, Juris G., 14, 207208
Dudley-Rowley, M., 65
Dynamism
Confucian, 188
Western, 188
Earth observations
images, 8085, 87100
orbit, 8182, 84, 8990, 9394, 97, 101
photographs, vii, 8085, 8791, 94,
97101
Endeavour (English expedition), 63
Enos (chimpanzee), 19
Environmental factors, 19
human-environment interfaces, 55, 77
human-human interfaces, 55, 77
human-technology interfaces, 55
inaccessibility, 50
lack of communication, 50
lack of real-time support, 50
Subject Index
Environments, 149
analog, 13, 21, 4777
laboratory, 4954, 6870, 76
simulators/simulations, 48, 51, 71
spaceflight, 23, 56
Equal Opportunity Employment Program, 40.
See also Affirmative Action
Equipment, 149
70-mm Hasselblad, 8283
250-mm lens, 82, 84
400-mm lens, 84
800-mm lens, 84, 9092, 9799, 101
Kodak 460 DSC, 84
Kodak 760 DSC, 85
Ergonomics. See human factors
Europe, 146
European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica
(EPICA), 73
European Space Agency (ESA), 15, 68, 74,
196197
EVA (extravehicular activity), 4, 80, 87, 90,
93, 95, 150
Experimental design
civilian participants, 111
clothing, 111
controlled variables, 111
crewmembers, 111
eating, 111
hygiene, 112
hypotheses, 112
measurement techniques, 112
Mission Control, 112
noise, 112
observing participants, 112
outside viewing, 112
participant recruitment, 111
placebo training, 111
preflight training, 111
sleeping, 110
waste management, 110
Experimental group, 111
Experiments, 110111, 116, 152153
Exploration Medical Capability Program, 30
Extravehicular activity (EVA), 4, 80, 87, 90,

93, 95, 150
Extreme environments, 137
Extreme human environments
space analogs, 4777
space habitats, 47
Extreme unusual environments (EUEs), 6869
Facial expressions, 45
Fatigue, 15, 56, 70, 72
Fedderson, William E., 8
Feminauts, 25
Fiedler, Edna R., 198, 208
Fiedler, F. E., 184
Finney, Ben, 6364
Flaherty, Bernard, 8
(FMARS), 7475
Fletcher, James, 40
Flickenger, Don, 38
Flight duration, 110, 116, 162, 171
long-duration, 116, 150, 153154, 165,
167, 169, 173
short-duration, 116, 171
Flynn, Christopher, 27
Focusing events, 45
Foushee, H. Clay, 12
France, 73, 146, 157, 179
Freedman, J. L., 106, 118
French Navy, 64
Freud, Sigmund, 155
Friendship 7, 81
Frozen Sea, 6566
Gagarin, Yuri A., 48, 103, 119, 178179, 189
Galarza, Laura, 37
Galilei, Galileo, 48
Gazenko, Oleg, 32
Gemini, 1112, 20, 36, 82
Gender, 14, 24, 125126, 128, 130, 137138,
144, 162, 164165, 167
differences, 36, 3841, 128130, 200201
heterogeneity vs. homogeneity, 14,
121, 138141
vs. sex, 128
239
Genesis I and II, 120

GENMOD, 9091, 95
Genovese, Kitty, 121
Germany, 146, 157, 179
Glenn, John H., 7, 81, 119
GLIMMIX, 90, 95
Goddard, Robert, 48
Golden Gate Bridge, 98
Goldin, Dan, 40
Greece, 185
Greene, Thomas C., 120
Group dynamics, 4, 7, 54, 59, 67, 77, 114
Group for Psychological Support (Soviet
Union), 33
Groups
expeditionary teams, 50, 53, 62, 68
historical expeditions, 50, 54, 6266, 77
military teams, 51
mountaineering expeditions, 51, 62
multicultural, 49, 77
multinational, 49, 55, 77
polar expeditions, 51, 5457, 59,
6162, 6566, 71
real world, 4952, 77
Guest cosmonaut program, 12, 38. See also
Interkosmos
Gunderson, E. K. Eric, 21, 54
Halvorson, Todd, 28
Ham (chimpanzee), 19
Ham radio, 42
Happiness, 103
Harris, Bernard, 67
Harris, Philip R., 6
Harris, Ruth Bates, 40
Harrison, Albert A., ix, 14, 54, 106, 127128,
198, 208209
Harvey, Brian, 26
Haughton Crater, 74
Haughton-Mars Project (HMP), 74
Helmreich, Robert L., 6, 12, 32, 44, 60
Helms, Susan, 28
Hewrmaszewski, Miroslaw, 179
High fidelity, 107
240
History
of psychological testing in space
program, 4
of the psychology of space exploration,
vii, x
Hofstede, G. J., 187189
Holland, Al, 2627, 37
Hong Kong, 178
Human factors, 1, 45, 8, 16
attitudes toward, 23, 43
conceptual aspects of, 11
Human Health and Countermeasures
Program, 30
Human Research Program, 17, 30, 43
Integrated Research Plan, 43
Requirements Documents, 43
Icarus and Daedalus. See Daedalus and Icarus
Iliad, 54
Impression management, 156
Index of amicability, 115
India, 146, 179
Individualism-collectivism, 159, 185, 188, 190
Institute of Geography, 83
Interdisciplinary collaborations, x
Interkosmos, 146, 149, 157, 164, 172, 177,
179180. See also guest cosmonaut
program
International Academy of Astronautics
(IAA), ix, 181, 209, 211, 213, 215
International Association for Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 178
International Ergonomics Association, 4
International Geophysical Year (IGY), 20
of 19561957, 54, 71
of 19571958, 6566
International rivalry, 144
Cold War, 144, 154
space race, 144, 174175
International Space Station (ISS), 1113, 20,
22, 29, 42, 45, 58, 80101, 125, 130131,
139, 141, 143, 146147, 152154, 157,
174, 177, 180, 196197
Medical Project, 30
Subject Index
International Trans-Antarctic, 66
Interpersonal, 148, 154, 160, 169, 172173
interaction, 10, 86, 110, 140, 149, 153,
159, 160162, 164168, 172, 182
relationships, 1, 10, 27, 159, 160, 172,
174
Isolation, 8, 15, 26, 49, 52, 5455, 5859, 61,
67, 7073, 75, 86, 125
Italy, 73, 179, 185
Jahn, Sigmund, 179
Japan, 146, 157, 179, 185, 188189
Job analysis, 38
Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, 21,
82, 183
Jones, David R., 36
Kaminski, Megan A., 14, 200, 209
Kanas, Nick, 2, 8, 32, 137
Kass, J., 2
Kass, R., 2
Kennedy, John F., 39
Key Largo, 70
Kon-Tiki, 62
Korolev, Sergey, 48
Krikalev, Sergei, 99
Kring, Jason, 14, 181183, 200, 209210
Kubis, Joseph, 8
Kushner, K., 187
Lady Franklin Bay, 6566
Laika, 18
Latan, Bibb, 121
Launius, Roger, 23
Lebedev, Valentin, 131, 153
Lehman, D. R., 192
Leon, Gloria, 15, 210211
Lindsley, Donald B., 9
Linenger, Jerry, 29, 81, 151, 154
Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC),
160161, 167168, 172
Lomov, B. F., 32
Long-duration missions, 47, 6162, 69, 154,
173, 183, 196
Long-duration spaceflight (LDSF), 126, 129,
137138
Long-term vs. short-term time orientation,

62, 69, 75
Lovelace, Randall, 39
Lovelace Clinic, 34, 39
Mercury astronauts, 39, 129
women tested at, 39, 129
Low, George, 24
Lowell, Percival, 48
Lucid, Shannon, 150151, 169
Lugg, Desmond, 21
Lunar missions, 1112, 20, 30, 4243, 86,
104105, 119, 126, 147, 174175, 196,
198199. See also Apollo
Management, 7, 55, 177, 181182
Mars, 126, 141
(FMARS), 7475
Haughton-Mars Project (HMP), 74
human missions, 1113, 16, 30, 4243,
58, 73, 80, 86, 101, 104105, 119,
123, 126, 130, 141, 174175, 196,
199202
(MDRS), 75
Mars Society, The, 7476
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville,
Alabama, 67
Marxism, 155
Masculinity-femininity, 188, 190
ranks in, for Japan, Russia, and the
United States, 188189
McCrae, R. R., 60
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace Corporation,
107108, 113
McKinley, Mt., 99
McLaughlin, Edward J., 8
Measurement, 10
big-eye, 71
critical incidents, 187
depression, 7172
group fission, 58
group fusion, 58
hostility, 71
241
impaired cognition, 71
personal diaries, 50, 54
psychological, 153, 157160, 164
psychophysiological, 52
psychosocial, 4950, 53, 55, 68, 7172,
76
salutogenic, 72
self-efficacy, 73
self-reliance, 73
winter-over syndrome, 71
Medical Sciences Division, NASA, 37
Meister, David, 11
Merbold, Ulf, 179
Mercury, Project, 4, 1112, 17, 1920, 24, 27,
3435, 3839, 82, 104, 129, 156
Merritt, A., 189
Meyers, David G., 122
Microgravity, 15, 19, 4748
Milgram, Stanley, 121
Mir Space Station, 1, 1112, 17, 20, 22, 26,
29, 3133, 45, 83, 130, 143, 150151,
153154, 169, 171, 173, 177, 181, 198
Mission Control, 3, 2627, 51, 68, 70, 77,
126, 128, 150, 152, 173
Mission phase, 158, 164169
in-flight, 164166, 168169
postflight, 164166, 169
preflight, 164166, 168
Missions
Apollo, 1112, 20, 24, 2627, 29,
38, 6566, 8182, 104, 108, 146,
177181
asteroid, 126, 130, 141, 175
extended duration, 1, 9, 1113, 43
Gemini, 1112, 20, 36, 82
Genesis, 120
Interkosmos, 146, 149, 157, 164, 172,
177, 179180
International Space Station (ISS),
1113, 20, 22, 29, 42, 45, 58,
80101, 125, 130131, 139, 141,
143, 146147, 152154, 157, 174,
177, 180, 196197
242
lunar, 1112, 20, 30, 4243, 86, 104

105, 119, 126, 147, 174175, 196,
198199
Mars, 1113, 16, 30, 4243, 58, 73, 80,
86, 101, 104105, 119, 123, 126,
130, 141, 174175, 196, 199202
Mercury, 4, 1112, 17, 1920, 24, 27,
3435, 3839, 82, 104, 129, 156
Mir, 1, 1112, 17, 20, 22, 26, 29,
3133, 45, 83, 130, 143, 150151,
153154, 169, 171, 173, 177, 181,
198
Salyut, 7, 26, 32, 6566, 130131, 149
150, 177
Skylab, 12, 20, 2728, 32, 82
Space Shuttle, 9, 1112, 20, 32, 42, 48,
8182, 87, 125, 143, 150151, 154,
173, 180181
Spacelab, 177, 179180
Vostok, 129
Mistacoba experiment, 74
Mitchell, Edgar, 29
Modules, 146
Monitor on Psychology, vii
Moon missions. See Lunar missions
Mount, Frances, 15
Mt. McKinley. See McKinley, Mt.
Mullin, C. S., 54, 71
Multinationality, 143175
American-Russian team, 143, 180
differences in national origin, 148149,
154, 157158, 162
foreign and compatriot visitors, 146
147, 149151, 153, 172
host nationality (American, Russian),
143, 172173
host-guest relationship, 143144,
146147, 150, 152153, 162, 166,
171173
intercultural issues, 128, 143, 148, 153
mixed-nationality crews, 128, 143,
146150, 157, 172
Musson, David, 44
Subject Index
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space

Administration), 2, 6, 11, 17, 21, 35, 37,
42, 129, 150, 156157, 162, 172, 174
Ames Research Center, 67, 74
behavioral health and, 67, 10, 198
Communications Support Services
Center, ix
employment of women by, 3841, 125
126, 129130
equal opportunity employment in,
3941
Extreme Environment Mission
Operation (NEEMO), 70
History Division, ix, 178
Johnson Space Center, 21, 82
Marshall Space Flight Center, 67
Medical Sciences Division, 37
psychology, role in, 67, 1617, 20,
2225, 3233, 35, 39, 4445, 150,
198
public relations and, 2, 24, 35
Weightless Environmental Training
Facility (WET-F), 48
NASA-Mir, 81, 83
National Academy of Sciences, 9, 11, 22, 40,
74
National Commission on Space, 55
National Geographic Society, 74
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), 70
National Research Council, 74
Committee on Space Biology and
Medicine, 911
National Science Board, 55
National Science Foundation, 6, 21
National Space Biomedical Research
Institute, 17, 3031, 37, 43
National Undersea Research Center
(NURC), 70
Nautilus (submarine), 69
Negative interpersonal interactions, 109, 121,
123, 152, 156, 160, 164166, 168169,
172173
NEO-Personality Inventory, 60
Neuroticism, 36, 6061
New way of thinking, 118
about equipment, 119
about spacefarers, 121
Newton, Isaac, 48
Nicollier, Claude, 179
Nonprofessional spacefarers, 151, 156
North Pole, 62
Nutrition, 5
Obama, Barack H., 126, 174
Obedience, 121, 161
Oberth, Hermann, 48
Odum, Floyd, 39
Odyssey, 54, 179
Olson, Valerie A., 13, 211
One-way window, 110111
Openness to experience, 60
Overview effects, 29
Palinkas, Lawrence, 7, 53, 58, 72
Palmer Station, 58
Payload specialists, 151, 157
Performance, 2, 9, 26, 30, 147, 170, 173, 198
autonomous decision-making, 50
command and control, 51
conflict resolution, 50
group dynamics, 3, 10, 54, 59, 67, 77
leadership, 51, 56, 59
problem-solving, 50
selection, 5859, 6667, 7677
self-monitoring, 50, 77
self-regulation, 50
support, 47, 4950, 5859, 69, 73, 77
team communication, 4950, 62
team cooperation, 5556, 68
team coordination, 5556
training, 47, 68, 70, 77
Perrow, Charles, 23
Personality differences, 53, 5657, 6061,
127, 131, 151, 154155, 174
Petrov, B. N., 32
Pettit, Don, 97
Placebo, 111, 115116
243
Positive psychology, 44, 147

Positive reactions, 80, 86, 101, 147, 151, 153,
160161, 164165, 167170, 172, 199
changes in values, 199
personal growth, 86
Power distance, 188, 190
Privacy, 22, 58, 125, 181
Progress, 87, 174
Psychiatrists, vii, 1, 23, 37, 42
Psychological research, vii
confidentiality, need for, 25
involving astronauts in, 31
unobtrusive, 45
Psychological support, 1, 13, 17, 4142
Psychological testing, 202
applicant screening, 198
history of, in space program, 4
Psychologists, vii, 1, 42, 44, 147
Psychology, 15, 42
astronauts as research subjects, 149
personality, social, and organizational,
1, 6
positive, 44, 199200
Psychophysiological Aspects of Space Flight
(Bernard Flaherty), 8
Psychophysiology, 144, 147
Psychosocial adjustment, 1, 17
Psychosocial factors, 125
confinement, 49, 52, 5455, 5859, 61,
6667, 69, 7173, 75, 126
isolation, 49, 52, 5455, 5859, 61, 67,
7073, 75, 126
Psychotherapy, 202
Public relations, 2425, 156
Reagan, Ronald W., 20
Red hands disease, 149, 179
Remek, Vladimir, 149151, 179
Research, 7, 10, 13, 16, 25, 36, 43, 45, 152
archived, 81
collection, 100
data, 8082, 8687, 8991, 97,
100101
Ride, Sally, 41, 130
244
Right Stuff, The (Tom Wolfe)/right stuff, 17,

2333, 41, 60, 61, 119, 198
Ritsher, Jennifer Boyd, 152, 180, 189, 202.
See also Boyd, Jennifer
Robinson, Julie A., 13, 200, 211212
Robotics, 13
Rogers, Buck, 8
Romania, 179
Royal Navy, 63
Russia, 20, 146147, 149154, 156158, 162,
164165, 167, 169174
Russian Academy of Sciences, 83
Russian Institute for Space Research (IKI), 74
Russian space program, 6, 2627, 143, 145
152, 154, 157, 159, 162, 164165, 168,
170174
NASA and, views of psychology, 3233
space race and, 25, 32, 144145,
174175
space stations and, 154
Russian space stations
Mir, 1, 1112, 17, 20, 22, 26, 29,
3133, 45, 83, 130, 143, 150151,
153154, 169, 171, 173, 177, 181,
198
Salyut, 7, 26, 32, 6566, 130131, 149
150, 177
Rutan, Burt L., 104
Ryan, Craig, 7
Safe Passage: Astronaut Care for Exploration
Missions (John R. Ball and Charles H.
Evans, Jr., eds.), 11, 17, 22, 43, 49
Salutogenic experiences, 72, 80, 86, 101, 147,
199200
Salyut, 32, 130, 149150, 177
Salyut 7, 26, 6566, 131
Samaltedinov, I., 2
Samsonov, N. D., 32
Sandal, Gro M., 15, 59, 71, 116, 212
Santy, Patricia R., 67, 3537, 128
So Paulo, Brazil, 97
Savitskaya, Svetlana, 130131
Scaled Composites, LLC, 103104
Subject Index
Schmitt, Harrison, 28
Scholarship, criteria for, vii
Schwartz, S. H., 158159, 190
Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research,
21
Scott, Robert F., 54
Scripps Institute of Oceanography, 64
Selection, 1, 6, 13, 17, 3437, 4041, 43,
5859, 6667, 7677, 145146, 201
Self-report studies, 148, 153154, 156
Sells, Saul B., 8
Sensitivity, cultural, 14, 182, 192
Sensory deprivation, 6667, 161
SETI Institute, ix
Sex, 148, 158
vs. gender, 128
Shepanek, Mark, 25
Shepard, Alan, 81, 178
Shuttle. See Space Shuttle
Shuttle-Mir program, 29, 83, 150151, 154,
173
Simulated spaceflight experiment, 6, 1314,
17, 20, 123, 196
Delta Clipper, 108
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, 108
research purpose, 108
spaceflight simulator, 108, 148, 153
Simulation of Flight of International Crew on
Space Station (SFINCSS), 132
Single-stage-to-orbit rocket (SSTO), 108
Sipes, Walter, 42
Skylab, 12, 20, 2728, 32, 82
Slack, Kelley J., 13, 212213
Sleep, 26, 3031, 116, 149
Snow, C. P., vii
Social interaction, 167168
research with N of 1, 193
Social perception, 145, 152
Social relations, 155, 159161, 164165,
167174
Affiliative Trust/Mistrust, 160, 164, 169
Negative Intimacy, 160, 164166, 169
Positive Intimacy, 160, 164166
Society for Industrial and Organizational

Psychologists, 38
South Africa, 179
South Pole, 29
Soviet Interkosmos program. See Interkosmos
Soviet space program. See Russian space
program
Soviet Union, 145, 146147, 149, 156157.
See also Russia
Soyuz, 21, 26, 42, 47, 87, 146, 149, 180
Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, 20, 38,
177178, 180182
Space Age, vii, 44, 143144
Space analogs, 13, 20, 4777, 106107, 148,
153
Antarctic stations, 2021, 7173, 126
127, 132, 139, 140, 153
armored vehicles, 66
artificial environments, 51
caving expeditions, 55, 62
chamber studies, 48, 5153, 55, 59,
6668
civilian and military aviation, 56
constructed environments, 51, 67
environmental chambers, 48, 5153,
55, 59, 6668
extreme environments, 47, 49, 5254,
5657, 72, 76, 132, 137
extreme unusual environments (EUEs),
69
hybrids, 53, 74
hyperbaric chambers, 59, 68, 196
in situ studies, 49, 52, 196
laboratory studies, 49, 5152, 54, 76
long-duration, 47, 6162, 69
natural environments, 50, 52
naval ships, 63, 140
oceanographic research vessels, 6465
radiation profiles, 48
reduced-gravity environments, 48
short-duration, 62, 69, 75
simulations, 6, 8, 14, 17, 20, 24, 106
107, 148, 153, 196
245
submarines, 20, 55, 69, 127

submersible habitats, 6970, 153
terrestrial substitutes, 47
tuna can habitats, 69
underwater capsules, 55, 153
winter-overers, 61, 72, 153
Space Biomedical Research Institute, 37
Space girls, 25
Space hotels, 104, 119
Space Human Factors and Habitability
Program, 30
Space medicine, 11
Space Radiation Program, 30
Space Science Board, 55
Space Shuttle, 9, 1112, 20, 32, 42, 48,
8182, 87, 125, 143, 150151, 154, 173,
180181
Challenger, 16, 41, 47, 197
Columbia, 13, 16, 47, 84, 177, 179, 197
Discovery, 125126
Space Shuttle Earth Observation (SSEOP),
8284
Space stations, 1, 9, 12, 20, 23, 30, 32, 41,
145, 149, 151
astronauts and, 156
cosmonauts and, 156
International Space Station (ISS),
1113, 20, 22, 29, 42, 45, 58,
80101, 125, 130131, 139, 141,
143, 146147, 152154, 157, 174,
177, 180, 196197
Mir, 83, 143, 150151, 153154, 169,
171, 173, 177
Salyut, 7, 26, 32, 6566, 130131, 149
150, 177
Skylab, 12, 20, 2728, 32, 82
Space tourism, 1, 14, 103105, 108, 116117,
121122, 180, 197
Space tourists, 12, 14, 38, 105, 119, 122, 156
Space.com, 28
Spaceflight simulators, 108, 122
Spacelab, 177, 179180
Speech, stress and, 45
246
Stanford prison experiment, 121122

Stereotypes, 180
Stress, 23, 9, 34, 43, 5253, 5657, 60, 70,
73, 130, 147, 148, 169, 171, 173, 189
workload, 127
Stressors, 10, 43, 5657, 70, 147148, 173
career, 2
environmental, 169
psychological, 147, 171
STS-73, 84, 186
Submarines, 55, 69, 127
Submersible habitats, 20, 6970
Suedfeld, Peter, 7, 14, 57, 60, 199, 213214
Sunnyvale Conference, 21
Superordinate goals, 180
Syria, 146, 179
Systems, 9, 11, 13, 31, 152
Takata, T., 192
Teams, 3, 147, 150151, 154
mixed-gender, 71, 128129, 137138
Teamwork, 57
Technology, 13, 144145, 154
Tereshkova, Valentina, 125, 129, 130
Terra Nova Expedition, 6566
Test pilots, 17, 3334, 146, 148
Thagard, Norman, 150151
Thematic Content Analysis (TCA), 144,
148, 155167
autobiographies, 144
databases, 144, 156
media interviews, 144, 148, 156, 160
memoirs, 144, 147148, 156, 168169
oral history interviews, 144, 150151,
154, 156, 160, 169
quantitative data, 148, 155156
Three Mile Island, 5
Tito, Dennis A., 103
Tourism, space, 1, 14, 103105, 108, 116
117, 121122, 180, 197
Tourists, space, 12, 14, 38, 105, 119, 122, 156
Training, 6, 10, 17, 47, 68, 70, 77, 147, 149,
151, 153154, 173, 181182, 184, 189
Trenchard, Mike, 13, 214
Subject Index
Triandis, Harry C., 184186

Tsiolkovsky, Konstantin, 48
Two cultures, vii
Type A personality, 60
UCLA (University of California, Los
Angeles), 9
Uncertainty avoidance, 152, 188
as a cultural dimension, 188
definition of, 188189
United Kingdom, 179
United States Exploring Expedition, 64
University of Hawaii, 63
University of North Carolina at Wilmington,
70
U.S. Marine Corps, 74
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 9, 11,
22, 40, 74
U.S. National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
70
U.S. Naval Support Force Antarctica, 139
Utah, 75
Vakoch, Douglas A., 214215
Value hierarchies, 158159, 162, 164, 170
Achievement, 159, 162164, 170171
Benevolence, 159
Conformity, 159, 162164, 168, 171,
172
Hedonism (enjoyment), 159, 162, 164,
168, 172
Power, 152, 159, 164, 169
Security, 152, 159, 162, 171172
Self-Direction, 159, 162, 164, 169
Spirituality, 159160, 162, 164, 168,
171
Stimulation, 159, 164, 168
Tradition, 159
Universalism, 159, 162, 172
Value orientation, 152, 174, 187, 190191
cultural dimensions of, 152, 164, 170,
187
research on, 177
Values, 144, 147, 162, 168170, 173174, 200
differences between Russians and

Americans, 152, 159, 162, 164
in multinational space crews, 162,
164175, 197
national differences in, 197
Vander Ark, Steven, 42
Verne, Jules, 48, 144
Vietnam, 179
Vinci, Leonardo da. See da Vinci, Leonardo
Virgin Galactic, 104
Virgin Islands, 70
Vision for Space Exploration, 85, 126
Voas, Robert, 21, 24
von Braun, Wernher, 18, 48
Vostok 6, 129
Wayne, John, 25
Weick, Karl, 27
Weightless Environmental Training Facility
(WET-F), 48
Weightlessness, 5, 15, 19
Weitekamp, Margaret A., 78, 38, 39
Wells, H. G., 48
White, Frank, 29
Whitson, Peggy, 1213, 130
Wichman, Harvey A., 14, 197, 215216
Wilk, Kasia E., 14, 199, 216
Williams, Jeff, 98
Williams, Sunni, 12
Willis, Kimberly J., 13, 216217
Windows, 14, 22, 28, 80, 85, 89, 92, 99, 113
of opportunity, 31
Winter-over syndrome, 71
WISE (Women in Space Earlier), 38
Wolfe, Tom, 41
Women
as astronauts, 25, 3839, 125, 129,
145146
Lovelaces Women in Space Program,
129
NASA, employment by, 3841, 125,
129130
qualifications of, 129
in space, 125, 129
247
Women in Combat Task Force Study Group,

138
Woods, Joanna, 21
Woolford, Barbara, 15
Work, 2, 45, 28, 149154, 161, 168169,
171
Wouters, F., 71
Wrangel Island, 6566
Wright Air Development Center, 34
Wright brothers, 4, 48
Wylie Laboratories, 42
Zedekar, Raymond, 34
Zimbardo, Philip, 128
Zubek, J. P., 67
248
Authors Cited
Afanasev, Y., 190
Akins, F. R., 9, 11, 28, 33, 88, 180
Allik, J., 60
Altman, I., 49, 54, 67
Amsbury, D. L., 82
Andersen, D. T., 21
Anderson, C., 55
Anderson, J. R. L., 146
Annes, C. A., 36
Annes, R., 75
Antipov, V., 29
Apt, J., 81
Atkinson, J. W., 156, 160
Ayton, J., 21
Bachelard, C., 88, 132
Baddeley, A. D., 52
Bales, R. F., 112, 116
Ball, J. R., 11, 22, 85
Barber, H., 136
Bardi, A., 190
Barrick, M. R., 60
Barth, T., 13
Baugh, G. S., 138
Baum, A., 120
Baumann, D., 100
Bechtel, R. B., 88
Bell, P. A., 120
Bergan, P. T., 56, 59
Bergen, S., 150
Bernard, H. R., 6264
Berning, A., 88
Berry, C. A., 8
Berry, J. W., 184
Betzendoerfer, D., 57
Bioastronautics Critical Path Roadmap, 22,
29
Birkland, T. A., 31
Bishop, S. L., 5556, 62, 65, 75, 130, 132,
140, 182
Boeing Company, 56
Booth, R. J., 161

Bosrom, A., 154
Brady, J. V., 7, 1819
Brazil, D. M., 139
Brislin, R. W., 184, 187
Brown, W. R., 56
Bunzelek, K., 75
Burgess, C., 18
Burr, R., 55
Burris, J. W., 138
Burrough, B., 26, 145, 181
Butler, C., 150
Caldwell, B., 65
Carless, S. A., 134
Carpenter, F., 41
Cartwright, D., 133
Casutt, M., 178
Cazes, G., 132
Cernan, E., 26
Chamisso, A. von, 64
Chapanis, A., 57
Cizman, Z., 45
Clearwater, Y. A., 6, 21, 54, 57, 63, 69, 71,
72, 88, 117
Cleary, P. J., 52
Colquitt, J. A., 130
Committee on Space Biology and Medicine,
10
Connery, H., 71
Connors, M. M., 9, 11, 28, 33, 88, 180
Cooper, H. S. F., 20, 27
Costa, P. T., Jr., 60
Crespo-Richey, J., 100
Cunningham, W., 28
Currie, N. J., 13
Cushner, K., 187
Darley, J. M., 121
Dasen, P. R., 184
Davies, C., 52, 68
Davis, D., 26
249
Davis, S. F., 128

Davison, M., 151, 169
Dawson, J. L. M., 178
Dawson, S., 75
De Paola, C., 134
DeLongis, A., 160
DeRoshia, C. W., 31, 63
Dessinov, L. D., 81, 83
Devine, D. J., 135
Dickerson, P. W., 81, 83
Dinges, D. F., 45
Dion, K. L., 134, 136137
Dismukes, K., 120
Doi, L. T., 191
Dorrian, J., 45
Douglas, W. K., 28
Doyle, V. F., 197
Dubbs, C., 18
Dudley-Rowley, M., 65
Dukes, W. F., 192
Dunkel-Schetter, C., 160
Dunmore, J., 6364
Eagly, A. H., 130
Efimov, V. A., 52, 68
Eggins, R., 75
Ellis, A., 130
Emmart, C., 28
Endler, N. S., 131, 140
Endresen, I. M., 56
Engen, M. L. van, 130
Ethier, B., 81
European Space Agency, 74
Evans, C. A., 8184, 90, 100
Evans, C. H., Jr., 11, 22, 86
Evans, C. R., 136
Faulk, D., 56, 62
Fedderson, W. E., 8
Ferguson, L., 60
Festinger, L., 133
Feustl-Beuchl, J., 180
Fiedler, E. R., 41, 182
Fiedler, F. E., 184
Finney, B., 6365
250
Fisher, J. D., 120

Flaherty, B. E., 8, 67
Flynn, C. F., 25, 27, 31, 41
Fogg, L. F., 60
Folkman, S., 160
Foushee, H. C., 12
Francis, M. E., 161
Freedman, J. L., 106, 118
Freud, S., 155
Furniss, T., 147
Galarza, L., 3738, 182
Gilluly, R. H., 56
Goetzmann, W. H., 63
Goldenstein, S. K., 45
Goodykunst, W., 191
Graen, G. B., 138
Graham, N., 56
Greely, A., 50
Greene, T. C., 120
Grether, W. F., 4, 7
Grigoriev, A. I., 29
Grobler, L. C., 56, 62
Gruen, R., 160
Grund, E. M., 51, 68, 150151, 154
Grunzke, M. E., 19
Gully, S. M., 135
Gunderson, E. K. E., 2021, 5455, 61, 7172
Gushin, V. I., 2, 32, 52, 68, 150151, 154, 182
Haakonstad, E., 120
Hall, R. D., 149
Halvorson, T., 28
Harris, B., 67
Harris, P. R., 6
Harrison, A. A., 6, 9, 14, 2122, 28, 29, 31,
33, 43, 54, 57, 63, 69, 71, 72, 88, 106, 117,
127128, 128, 180
Harvey, B., 26
Hatfield, B. D., 136
Haythorn, W., 49, 54, 67
Heine, S. J., 192
Helfert, M., 81
Helmreich, R. L., 6, 12, 32, 44, 5657, 60, 70
Heyerdahl, T., 62
Authors Cited
Hochstadt, J., 45
Hofstede, G., 187189
Hofstede, G. J., 188189
Holland, A. W., 26, 3738, 55, 61, 128, 150,
181182
Hollenbeck, J. R., 130
Holquist, M., 144
Holsti, O. R., 155
Honingfeld, R., 67
House Committee on the Judiciary, 40
Howard, N., 70
Huntoon, C. L., 29, 182
Hysong, S. J., 182
Ihle, E. C., 86, 88, 147
Ilgen, D. R., 130
Ilies, R., 61
Inoue, N., 182
Jahoda, G., 178
James, D., 60
Johannes, B., 182
Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., 130
Jones, D. R., 36
Judge, T. A., 61
Jurion, S., 132
Kaiser, M. K., 13
Kaltenbach, J. L., 82
Kanas, N., 2, 8, 3132, 41, 5152, 56, 68,
86, 88, 126, 128, 131, 137, 140, 147148,
150151, 153154, 182
Kane, R. L., 31
Kanki, B. O., 56
Kass, J., 23
Kass, R., 23
Kealry, D. J., 182
Kelly, A. D., 31, 148
Kelly, D. R., 133, 147
Killworth, P., 6264
Kirkcaldy, B. D., 131
Klein, W., 71
Kluger, J., 50
Kocher, T., 57
Kolintchenko, V. A., 52, 68
Kosslyn, S. M., 45
Kozerenko, O. P., 2, 32, 150151, 154

Kraft, N., 182
Krell, R., 160
Kring, J. P., 181183
Kubis, J. F., 8
Kumar, P., 148, 152154
Landers, D. M., 136
Langfred, C. W., 133
Larson, M., 45
Latan, B., 121
Launius, R. D., 24
Lazarus, R. S., 160
Le Scanff, C., 61
Lebedev, V., 50, 131, 149, 153, 173
Lehman, D. R., 192
Lenoir, W. B., 82
Leon, G. R., 71, 182
LePine, J. A., 60, 130
Liddle, D. A., 82
Lieberman, P., 45
Lindsley, D. B., 9
Linenger, J. M., 29, 150151, 154
Link, M. M., 34
Linklater, E., 63
Lomov, B. F., 32
Lonner, W. J., 178
Looper, L., 128, 181
Lovell, J., 50
Lowe, C. A., 135
Lowman, P. D., Jr., 82
Lucid, S., 150151, 169
Lugg, D. J., 21
Lulla, K. P., 81, 83
Mallis, M. M., 31, 63
Manzey, D., 41, 68, 86, 126, 128, 131, 140,
147, 153, 182, 197
Marcondes-North, R., 128, 181
Marmar, C. R., 2, 32, 88, 150151, 154
Mars Institute, The, 74
Mars Society, The, 76
Marsch, S., 57
Mather, S., 45
Matsuzaki, I., 182
251
McAdams, D. P., 160

McCandless, J. W., 13
McCann, R. S., 13
McCarthy, G. W., 52
McClelland, D. C., 156, 160
McConnell, M. M., 16
McCoy, M. C., 135
McCrae, R. R., 60
McFadden, T. J., 60
McGlinchey, E. L., 45
McKay, C. P., 21, 54, 71, 88, 160
McKay, J. R., 6
McLaughlin, E. J., 8
McQuaid, K., 25, 40
Mears, J. D., 52
Meister, D., 5, 11
Merritt, A., 189
Metaxas, D. N., 45
Meyers, D. G., 122
Miesing, P., 135
Milgram, S., 121
Mitchell, E., 29
Mitchell, T., 184
Morey, A., 45
Moser, R., 56
Mount, F., 15
Mount, M. K., 60
Mullane, M., 145, 151
Mullin, C. S., 54, 72
Musson, D. M., 44, 182
Myasnikov, V. I., 29
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), 2, 29, 35, 44,
82, 8586, 89, 129, 145, 150, 156157,
162, 172, 174, 178
National Commission on Space, 55
National Science Board, 55
Neubert, M. J., 60, 138
Nishida, T., 191
Nolan, P. D., 65
North, R., 155, 182
Oberg, A. R., 32
Oberg, J. E., 32, 179
252
OHehir, F., 60
Oliver, D., 72
Pacros, A., 75
Palinkas, L. A., 7, 20, 29, 51, 53, 5556, 59,
61, 7172, 182
Palladino, J. J., 128
Panel on Human Behavior, 151
Panzer, F.-J., 139
Paola, C. De, 134
Patricio, R., 75
Pearce, R., 50
Pennebaker, J. W., 161
Perrow, C. E., 23
Petrov, B. N., 32
Phillips, T., 21
Poortinga, Y. H., 184
Preble, J., 135
Primeau, L., 56
Purvis, B., 52
Rasmussen, J. E., 20, 54, 71
Rawat, N., 75
Raymond, M. W., 56
Reynolds, H. H., 19
Reynolds, K., 75
Rhatigan, J., 100
Rholes, F. H., 19
Ricketson, D. S., 56
Rider, R. L., 45
Ritsher, J. B., 2, 32, 86, 147, 152, 154, 180
183, 189, 202
Robinson, J., 8184, 90, 100
Rogers, N. L., 45
Rollins, P., 150151, 169
Rose, R. M., 60
Rosenberger, N. R., 191
Rosnet, E., 61, 132, 139
Rummel, J. D., 21
Runciman, W. B., 57
Ryan, C., 18
Sagal, M., 61
Saimons, V. J., 139
Salnitskiy, V. P., 2, 32, 51, 68, 150151, 154,
182
Authors Cited
Salvendi, G., 15
Samaltedinov, I., 23
Samsonov, N. D., 32
Sandal, G. M., 51, 56, 59, 68, 71, 88, 116,
132, 182, 197
Sanders, A., 61
Santy, P. A., 67, 24, 3233, 3537, 56, 62,
128, 181
Saylor, S. A., 2, 32, 154
Scanff, C. Le, 61
Scheidegger, D., 57
Schjll, O., 56, 62
Schmidt, H., 28
Schmidt, L., 21
Schwartz, S. H., 158159, 190
Segall, M. H., 184
Sellen, A., 57
Sells, S. B., 8
Sexner, J. L., 56
Sexton, B., 57
Shappel, S. A., 56
Shayler, D. J., 147, 149
Shayler, M. D., 147
Shepanek, M., 21, 25, 27
Shephard, J. M., 45
Shlapentokh, V., 190191
Short, P., 31
Shurley, J. T., 72
Shwalb, B. J., 191
Shwalb, D. W., 191
Siebold, G. L., 133
Sipes, W. E., 2, 31, 33, 41, 182183
Skelly, J., 52
Slayton, D. K., 178
Sled, A., 150151, 154
Smirnova, T. M., 52
Smith, C. P., 156
Society of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 38
Space Science Board, 55
Stanton, W., 64
Steel, G. D., 53, 60, 69, 147, 160
Stefanowska, P., 197
Stefansson, V., 50
Steiner, I. D., 134
Stewart, G. L., 60
Stogdill, R. M., 134
Stoker, C., 28
Strange, R., 71
Stuster, J., 50, 88, 127, 132, 139, 140, 147,
182
Suedfeld, P., 7, 27, 29, 44, 5153, 57, 60, 69,
72, 73, 86, 88, 147, 160, 168170, 182
Sullivan, K. D., 75, 81
Summit, J. E., 28
Sundaresan, A., 75
Taggar, S., 7
Takata, T., 192
Tarazona, F., 150
Tate-Brown, J., 100
Taylor, A. J. W., 72
Thagard, N. E., 150151
Thumm, T., 100
Tomi, L., 197
Triandis, H. C., 184186
Tziner, A., 136
Ursin, H., 51, 5556, 59, 68, 116
Vaernes, R., 51, 56, 59, 68, 116
van der Walt, J. H., 57
van Engen, M. L.,130
Vander Ark, S. T., 2, 33
Vardi, Y., 136
Vaughan, D., 16
Vecchio, R. P., 139
Venkartamarian, S., 45
Vinokhodova, A. G., 52
Vis, B., 149
Voas, R., 34
Volger, C., 45
von Chamisso, A., 64
Walt, J. H. van der, 57
Warncke, M., 56, 59
Webb, R. K., 57
Weick, K. E., 27
Weiner, B. L., 12, 56
Weiss, D. S., 2, 32, 88, 150151, 154
253
Weiszbeck, T., 86, 170

Weitekamp, M. A., 78, 18, 25, 3839, 41
Weybrew, B. B., 6970
Wharton, R. A., 21
White, F., 29
Whitney, D. J., 135
Whitney, S., 65
Wichman, H. A., 108, 120
Wiebe, R., 160
Wiegmann, D. A., 56
Wilkinson, J., 81
Wilkinson, M. O., 136
Williams, D., 29
Williamson, J. A., 57
Wilmarth, V. R., 82
Wilson, G., 52
Wilson, O., 72
Wolf, D., 151
Wolfe, T., 18, 41
Wood, J., 21, 27
Woolford, B., 13, 15
Wouters, F., 71
Wright, R., 150151, 169
Yacovone, D. W., 57
Zaccaro, S. J., 134, 135
Zamaletdinov, I. S., 29
Zander, A., 133
Zaninovich, M. G., 155
Zaprisa, T. B., 52
Zedekar, R., 34
Zimmerman, R., 149150, 173
Zinnes, D. A., 155
Zubek, J. P., 49, 67
254

Psychology of Space Exploration PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychology of Space Exploration PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychology of

The NASA History Series

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

To Julie and Len

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Albert A. Harrison, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis

Section I: Surviving and Thriving in Extreme Environments

Albert A. Harrison, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis

Chapter 3. From Earth Analogs to Space: Getting There from Here

Sheryl L. Bishop, Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health

Chapter 4. Patterns in Crew-Initiated Photography of Earth from the

Julie A. Robinson, Office of the ISS Program Scientist, National Aeronautics

Psychology of Space Exploration

Section II: Managing Interpersonal Conflict in Space

Harvey Wichman, Aerospace Psychology Laboratory, Claremont McKenna

Chapter 6. Gender Composition and Crew Cohesion During Long-Duration

Section III: Multicultural Dimensions of Space Exploration

Peter Suedfeld, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia

Chapter 8. Spaceflight and Cross-Cultural Psychology

Juris G. Draguns, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University

Afterword. From the Past to the Future

Gro Mjeldheim Sandal, Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen

About the Authors

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Psychology of Space Exploration

Introduction: Psychology and the U.S. Space Program

Psychology of Space Exploration

Once, I was evaluating astronaut applicants says psychiatrist

1. How Astronauts Get Along, Science@NASA, 21 October 2002, available at http://

Introduction: Psychology and the U.S. Space Program

4. J. Kass, R. Kass, and I. Samaltedinov, Psychological Problems of Man in Space: Problems

Psychology of Space Exploration

Ibid., pp. 9293.

Introduction: Psychology and the U.S. Space Program

applied to human work. Classically, human factors addresses peoples interaction

7. D. Meister, Conceptual Aspects of Human Factors (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins

Psychology of Space Exploration

can we forget the problems of selection, training, and simulator

Ibid., pp. 276277.

Introduction: Psychology and the U.S. Space Program

Psychology of Space Exploration

Introduction: Psychology and the U.S. Space Program

In 1972, the National Academy of Sciences released the report of a study

Psychology of Space Exploration

Introduction: Psychology and the U.S. Space Program

In 2001, the National Academy of Sciences issued Safe Passage: Astronaut

Psychology of Space Exploration

Introduction: Psychology and the U.S. Space Program

32. J. W. McCandless, M. K. Kaiser, T. Barth, R. S. McCann, N. J. Currie, and B. Woolford,

Psychology of Space Exploration

Introduction: Psychology and the U.S. Space Program

Psychology of Space Exploration

Finally, apart from psychological studies of astronauts, we acknowledge many

34. M. M. McConnell, Challenger: A Major Malfunction (New York: Doubleday, 1987);

Psychology of Space Exploration

5. F. H. Rholes, Jr., M. E. Grunzke, and H. H. Reynolds, Chimpanzee Performance During

Anon., Journal Interview 64: 1811.

Psychology of Space Exploration

H. S. F. Cooper, Jr., A House in Space (New York: Bantam Books, 1976).

9. L. A. Palinkas, The Psychology of Isolated and Confined Environments: Understanding

11. D. T. Andersen, C. P. McKay, R. A. Wharton, Jr., and J. D. Rummel, An Antarctic

Psychology of Space Exploration